Re: An informal survey... round II

[Andrew D Kirch <trelane () trelane net>]

John Curran wrote:
> At 9:12 AM -0400 8/30/07, William Herrin wrote:
>   
> > On 8/30/07, John Curran <jcurran () mail com> wrote:
> >     
> > > I.E.  If at some time unknown around 2010, ISP's stop receiving
> > > new allocations from their RIR, and instead use of many smaller
> > > "recycled" IPv4 address blocks, we could be looking at a 10x to
> > > 20x increase in routes per month for the same customer growth.
> > >       
> > John,
> >
> > Why should we announce tiny recycled blocks? If there is a /16 in the
> > swamp in which half the space is free but its all /24's, why wouldn't
> > wouldn't we allocate all the free /24's to a single entity and
> > instruct the entity to announce it as a "holey" /16? The existing /24
> > holders will override (punch holes in) the /16 for their /24's.
> >     
>
> Consider large ISP's that can no longer obtain from the large blocks
> (e.g. /12 to /16) but instead must beg/barter/borrow blocks from others
> which are several orders  of magnitude smaller (e.g. /16 through /24)
> every week to continue growing...  such obtained blocks would be
> announced into the routing system very rapidly as we try to keep
> IPv4 running post depletion of the free address pool.  When this
> inflection point is reached, how much headroom do we have given
> equipment being deployed today?
>
> /John
Is there a possible revenue stream here for larger ISP's to begin 
charging their customers for not aggregating, and creating a penalty fee 
for each borken route?  We're running out of IPv4 space (and I don't 
think this can be solved with IPv4).  We're running out of routes for 
the Cisco Sup2 engine (among others), but unless someone makes money on 
it, this won't be solved.