On Thu, Apr 08, 2010 at 12:50:26PM -0500, Dan White wrote: > On 08/04/10 17:17 +0000, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote: > > in the IPv4 space, it was common to have a min allocation size of > > a /20 ... or 4,096 addresses ... and yet this amnt of space was > > allocated to someone who only needed to address "3 servers"... say > > six total out of a pool of four thousand ninty six. > > Granted, that may have been the case many years ago. > > However, this was not our experience when we obtained addresses, and the > ARIN rules as I understand them would not allow such an allocation today.
i picked a fairly recent example - the min allocation size has fluctuated over time. still it is not the case that most folks will get -exactly- what they need - they will - in nearly every case - get more address space than they need - due to the min allocation rules > > Thats a huge amnt of wasted space. If our wise and pragmatic leaders > > (drc, jc, et.al.) are correct, then IPv4 will be around for a very > > long time. > > > > What, if any, plan exists to improve the utilization density of the > > existant IPv4 pool? > > I believe your question is based on an outdated assumption. and that outdated assumption is? > Dan White --bill