[48359] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IP renumbering timeframe
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Marshall Eubanks)
Thu May 30 11:46:02 2002
From: "Marshall Eubanks" <tme@multicasttech.com>
To: Leo Bicknell <bicknell@ufp.org>,
Marshall Eubanks <tme@multicasttech.com>
Cc: nanog <nanog@merit.edu>
Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 11:44:35 -0400
In-Reply-To: <20020530145831.GA43614@ussenterprise.ufp.org>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Thu, 30 May 2002 10:58:31 -0400
Leo Bicknell <bicknell@ufp.org> wrote:
> 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.
>
I was assuming that every ASN would claim its space and not renounce any.
However, in my BGP tables
total number of Active Unicast AS = 13077
so, I think you are right - about 10K new routes at present, or roughly 10%.
Marshall
> --
> 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
