Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

[Matthew Kaufman <matthew () matthew at>]

> On Jul 10, 2015, at 9:52 AM, Owen DeLong <owen () delong com> wrote:
>
>
> > > On Jul 10, 2015, at 03:57 , Matthew Kaufman <matthew () matthew at> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Jul 9, 2015, at 11:53 PM, Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, 09 Jul 2015 23:33:25 -0700, Matthew Kaufman said:
> > >
> > > > One of the hopeful outcomes of IPv6 adoption was that an ISP could get
> > > > enough to last "forever" in a single transaction. But "forever" isn't
> > > > very long at one /48 (or more) per customer.
> > >
> > > How long does it take to blow through a /20 at /48 a customer?
> >
> > A while. But the more likely case is that the guy before you asked for and got a /32, because that's the minimum 
> > (and already two steps up the fee scale, I might add)
> >
> > You want ISPs to start with /20s? I'll support that over on PPML if you propose it. But I'll also ask for /20 to 
> > have a fee category of "small".
> >
> > Matthew Kaufman
> >
> > (Sent from my iPhone)
>
> According to https://www.arin.net/fees/fee_schedule.html
>
> ISP / ALLOCATIONS INITIAL REGISTRATION OR ANNUAL FEES
> Service Category      Initial Registration or Annual Fee
> (US Dollars)  IPv4 Block Size IPv6 Block Size
> XX-Small      $500    /22 or smaller  /40 or smaller
> X-Small       $1,000  Larger than /22, up to and including /20        Larger than /40, up to and including /36
> Small $2,000  Larger than /20, up to and including /18        Larger than /36, up to and including /32
> Medium        $4,000  Larger than /18, up to and including /16        Larger than /32, up to and including /28
> Large $8,000  Larger than /16, up to and including /14        Larger than /28, up to and including /24
> X-Large       $16,000 Larger than /14, up to and including /12        Larger than /24, up to and including /20
> XX-Large      $32,000 Larger than /12 Larger than /20
>
>
> If your IPv4 ISP fits in a /22 or smaller, you can hand out /48s from a /32 for a very long time.
>       (maximum 1024 customer end-sites with no addresses reserved for your own infrastructure, /32 = 65535 customer
>               end sites after reserving a /48 for your infrastructure)
> If your IPv4 ISP fits in a /20 or smaller, you can hand out /48s from a /32 for a pretty long time.
>       (maximum 4096 customer end-sites with no addresses reserved for your own infrastructure, /32 = 65535 customer
>               end sites after reserving a /48 for your infrastructure)
> If your IPv4 ISP fits in a /18 or smaller, you can hand out /48s from a /32 for quite a while.
>       (maximum 16,384 customer end-sites with no addresses reserved for your own infrastructure, /32 = 65535 customer
>               end sites after reserving a /48 for your infrastructure).
>
> At IPv6 /18 or smaller, you’re in the same fee category as an IPv6 /32.
>
> As you go up, the situation only gets better…
>
> If your ISP uses an IPv4 /16, then you have a maximum of 65,536 customers with no allowance for infrastructure.
> For free, you can get an IPv6 /28. This allows you 16,777,215 /48 end sites with a /48 reserved for your 
> infrastructure.
>
> If your ISP uses an IPv4 /14, then you have a maximum of 262,144 customers with no allowance for infrastructure.
> For free, you can get an IPv6 /24 to support up to 268,435,455 /48 end sites after reserving a /48 for infrastructure.
>
> Sure, Matthew is going to point out that my maximum IPv4 customer numbers assume you aren’t doing CGN. That’s true.
> Let’s assume you get a ratio of 64 customers per address using CGN (the real numbers are more like 8-16 customers
> per address before stuff starts to degrade badly).
>
> 64 * 1024 = 65536 subscribers on a /22, assuming you have no infrastructure, no servers, and no customers that
>       refuse to accept densely packed CGN. At this point, you can still hand out a /48 to every customer for all
>       practical purposes if you have a /32 of IPv6.
>
> Yes, the ultra-tiniest of ISPs will have to pay an extra $1,500 per year for their address space. Everybody else will
> actually probably be able to pay less per year for address space once they can abandon IPv4, even if they give a /48
> to every single end-site.
>
> Owen

I use legacy IPv4 space and pay nothing. So IPv6 would be a big jump. Didn't even need to invoke NAT for my argument.

But I'll repeat what I said before - want ISPs handing out lots of space? Make the minimum /20 or /24 instead of /32. 
I'll support that over on the other list if someone proposes it.

Matthew Kaufman

(Sent from my iPhone)