On 17/10/2014 17:58, Randy Bush wrote: > [ not pickin' on you, nick ] > > trying to find protein in this whole thread.
thin pickings :-( > in the long run, why will v6 not suffer the <your expletive about > reasons goes here> same deaggregation which is about half of the v4 > routing table? It might, but it won't matter as much because the number of baseline ipv6 allocations will be a whole pile lower. Here's why. 1. retrospectively: the RIR policies of not handing out piecemeal allocations based on 2Y policy means that most organisations will never need a second allocation outside their /32. If you look at existing RIR allocations, many of them are to the same organisations. Looking at: ftp://ftp.ripe.net/pub/stats/ripencc/membership/alloclist.txt There are: 7564 LIRs with ipv4 allocations outside 185/8 19856 ipv4 allocations outside 185/8 so the average # of allocations per LIR is ~2.62 for pre-last /8 addresses. Over all allocations, the numbers are 24416 allocations and 10134 LIRs. I.e. the last /8 policy has dramatically increased the number of LIRs with a single allocation. Possibly this is related to lack of PI space. RIPE has allocated 8069 ipv6 prefixes to 7849 LIRs, i.e. an allocation rate of 1.02. This includes last /8 assignments from RIPE's silly policy of requiring an ipv6 allocation for a last /8 assignment. This indicates that virtually all LIRs are staying within the bounds of their original allocations. This will reduce future pressure on the number of prefixes in the dfz. 2. in future: there are 10398 LIRs listed in alloclist. Of these, 7849 or almost exactly 75% of LIRs already have IPv6 allocations. So assuming that all RIPE LIRs will have an ipv6 allocation in future, that's growth from 8069 to ~10700 + one for each new LIR. 3. further deaggregation of the ipv4 dfz will be driven by the market economics of address holders splitting up their net blocks. 4. down the road, if we can get RIPE to stop its silly policy of requiring an ipv6 allocation in order to get an ipv4 allocation from the last /8, this will further reduce pressure on the overall number of allocations, which leads to: > maybe if we start filtering now. but we know how well that went in ipv4 > when their suits called our suits and said "we pay you to let us contact > <deaggregator>. The baseline for starting to deaggregate will be much lower for ipv6 and there will be much less pressure in future to deaggregate. I haven't looked at the other RIR figures. No doubt they differ in numbers, but my hunch is that they tell a similar story. Nick _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list GROW@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
