[165980] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: minimum IPv6 announcement size
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Randy Carpenter)
Fri Sep 27 13:04:36 2013
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2013 13:04:23 -0400 (EDT)
From: Randy Carpenter <rcarpen@network1.net>
To: William Herrin <bill@herrin.us>
In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGUseWxkxyqszLe0owCywDRde9nt6RMdj70JL5KKgdnBGA@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
> There is no bit length which allocations of /20's and larger won't
> quickly exhaust. It's not about the number of bits, it's about how we
> choose to use them.
>
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
True, but how many orgs do we expect to fall into that category? If the majority are getting /32, and only a handful are getting /24 or larger, can we assume that the average is going to be ~/28 ? If that is so, then out of the current /3, we can support over 30,000,000 entities. Actually, I would think the average is much closer to /32, since there are several orders of magnitude more orgs with /32 than /20 or smaller. Assuming /32 would be 500 million out of the /3. So somewhere between 30 and 500 million orgs.
How many ISPs do we expect to be able to support? Also, consider that there are 7 more /3s that could be allocated in the future.
As has been said, routing slots in the DFZ get to be problematic much sooner than address runout. Most current routers support ~1 million IPv6 routes. I think it would be reasonable to assume that that number could grow by an order of magnitude or 2, but I don't thin we'll see a billion or more routes in the lifetime of IPv6. Therefore, I don't see any reason to artificially inflate the routing table by conserving, and then making orgs come back for additional allocations.
-Randy
