[48356] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IP renumbering timeframe
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Leo Bicknell)
Thu May 30 10:59:04 2002
Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 10:58:31 -0400
From: Leo Bicknell <bicknell@ufp.org>
To: Marshall Eubanks <tme@multicasttech.com>
Cc: nanog <nanog@merit.edu>
Mail-Followup-To: Marshall Eubanks <tme@multicasttech.com>,
nanog <nanog@merit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <web-1365608@multicasttech.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
In a message written on Thu, May 30, 2002 at 10:40:47AM -0400, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
> It would add 30% to the number of BGP address blocks pretty much automatically.
How do you come up with that number? Of course, we have an issue
with reclaiming existing space, but I think there are a number of
people who have /20's today who only need a /24. Also, only
allocated ASN's could anounce (what's that, 24k today?), and probably
half or more of those would choose not to use this /24. Why would
say, UUnet with /12's need a /24? So I'm thinking worst case this
might be 5-15k new routes, which is probably 3-13% of the total
space already announced.
--
Leo Bicknell - bicknell@ufp.org - CCIE 3440
PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request@tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org
