> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Ziv Leyes > Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2008 5:29 AM > To: Whisper > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [c-nsp] OT : IPv6 - Will it hit like an "avalanch"? > > > I want to set an appointment with you in, let's say 10 years from > today and we can talk it over again > Do you know how many of the IPv4 "allocated" addresses aren't > actually in use and are only held at the LIRs and RIRs IP > "storage basement" for future use?
Yes, the RIR's know this. Last I read it's about equivalent to a 3-4 /8's. That's a lot of IP addresses, but the RIR's are gulping them down at around 2 /8's a year I think. The largest number of "allocated but held" IPv4 numbers are in the United States for obvious reasons. Politically it would rather difficult to pry them free. Also they are not organized in a nice large subnet, but rather a collection of subnets randomly scattered throughout the IP space. It is unlikely that the work to collect them all up would be worth it. It might possibly help some of the really small ISP's who are short IPv4 to be able to hang on another 3-4 years without going to IPv6. But it won't do a thing to help out the large operators. > This could happen in the future too, a single person can apply > for a million IPv6 addresses and perhaps he will get them, > because "there are som many, so what the heck, let him have 'em" Remember there is a yearly fee that has to be paid for allocations. Setting aside the requirements to meet the justifications for allocations, just getting them and sitting on them and doing nothing with them would be rather costly. Keep in mind there's a fundamental difference in IPv4 allocations from IPv6 allocations. In the early days of the Internet, there was no yearly fee to keep IPv4 allocated. As a result if IANA assigned an IP block and the org that got it disappeared, there was no easy way to say "these guys aren't using this number block anymore, we will take it back and put it back in the pool" When the RIR's were created, the legal mess of trying to start billing IPv4 holders who had existing assignments was deemed too complex to try to untangle. The last thing they wanted was multiple lawsuits questioning the authority of the RIR's to assign numbers. So the compromise was that previously allocated IPv4 would be left alone, but new IPv4 would be billed. Recently this has been amended so that previously allocated IPv4 -must- be included in the utilization calculations and justifications to get more IPv4. Because so many of the old IPv4 holders had been assigned very large IPv4 allocations, and had been extremely sloppy about them, it put them in a difficult position regarding utilization calculations. After all it's kind of hard when you have 50 internal T1's all using a /24 on the link, to claim your at 80% utilization of your IPv4. This gave the RIR's a lot of negotiating power when people requested new numbering. I noticed for example a number of years ago Microsoft had a /8 assigned, now it does not. I am sure that this is a result of pressure from ARIN on them to give it up. With IPv6 all of it is billed out. If an org disappears they stop paying the bill and the IPv6 goes into default and is returned to the RIR. Ted _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
