On Sep 27, 2013, at 10:04 AM, Randy Carpenter <rcar...@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. >> >> Regards, >> Bill Herrin > > 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. > > As has been said, routing slots in the DFZ get to be problematic much sooner > than address runout. Most current routers support ~1 million IPv6 routes. I > think it would be reasonable to assume that that number could grow by an > order of magnitude or 2, but I don't thin we'll see a billion or more routes > in the lifetime of IPv6. Therefore, I don't see any reason to artificially > inflate the routing table by conserving, and then making orgs come back for > additional allocations. In ipv4 there are 482319 routes and 45235 ASNs in the DFZ this week, of that 18619 ~40% announce only one prefix. given the distribution of prefix counts across ASNs it's quite reasonable to conclude that the consumption of routing table slots is not primarly a property of the number of participants but rather in the hands of a smaller number of large participants many of whom are in this room. > -Randy >
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
