nanog mailing list archives
Re: minimum IPv6 announcement size
From: William Herrin <bill () herrin us>
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2013 14:11:02 -0400
On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 1:04 PM, Randy Carpenter <rcarpen () network1 net> wrote:
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.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.
Hi Randy, If that's how we choose to use IPv6 then runout should be a long way away. That's a big "if". And choosing to stay that course is a form of conservation.
Therefore, I don't see any reason to artificially inflate the routing table by conserving, and then making orgs come back for additional allocations.
I'm not convinced of that. Suppose the plan was: you start with a /56. When you need more you get a /48. Next is a /40. Next a /32. Next a /28. You can hold exactly one of each size, never more. And the RIRs tell us all which address banks each size comes from. In such a scenario, the RIR doesn't have to reserve a /28 for expansion every time the allocate a /32. 'Cause, you know, that's what they've been doing. And you can easily program your router to discard the TE routes you don't wish to carry since you know what the allocation size was. That means you only have to carry at most 5 routes for any given organization. You'd want to allow some TE for the sake of efficient routing, but you get to choose how much. As things stand now, you're going to allow those guys with the /19s and /22s to do traffic engineering all the way down to /48. You don't have a practical way to say "no." Food for thought. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ herrin () dirtside com bill () herrin us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
Current thread:
- Re: minimum IPv6 announcement size, (continued)
- Re: minimum IPv6 announcement size William Herrin (Sep 26)
- Re: minimum IPv6 announcement size joel jaeggli (Sep 26)
- Re: minimum IPv6 announcement size bmanning (Sep 26)
- Message not available
- Re: minimum IPv6 announcement size Ryan McIntosh (Sep 27)
- Re: minimum IPv6 announcement size Brandon Ross (Sep 27)
- Re: minimum IPv6 announcement size Joe Abley (Sep 27)
- Re: minimum IPv6 announcement size William Herrin (Sep 27)
- Re: minimum IPv6 announcement size Randy Carpenter (Sep 27)
- Re: minimum IPv6 announcement size joel jaeggli (Sep 27)
- Re: minimum IPv6 announcement size Randy Carpenter (Sep 27)
- Re: minimum IPv6 announcement size William Herrin (Sep 27)
- Re: minimum IPv6 announcement size William Herrin (Sep 27)
- Re: minimum IPv6 announcement size Matt Palmer (Sep 27)
- Re: minimum IPv6 announcement size Owen DeLong (Sep 27)
- Re: minimum IPv6 announcement size Randy Bush (Sep 26)
- Re: minimum IPv6 announcement size William Herrin (Sep 30)
- Re: minimum IPv6 announcement size TJ (Sep 30)
- Re: minimum IPv6 announcement size William Herrin (Sep 30)
- Re: minimum IPv6 announcement size bmanning (Sep 30)
- Re: minimum IPv6 announcement size bmanning (Sep 26)
- Re: minimum IPv6 announcement size Ben (Sep 30)