Re: An informal survey... round II

John Curran wrote:
> At 9:12 AM -0400 8/30/07, William Herrin wrote:
>   
>> On 8/30/07, John Curran <jcurranmail.com> wrote:
>>     
>>> I.E.  If at some time unknown around 2010,
ISP's stop receiving
>>> new allocations from their RIR, and instead use
of many smaller
>>> "recycled" IPv4 address blocks, we
could be looking at a 10x to
>>> 20x increase in routes per month for the same
customer growth.
>>>       
>> John,
>>
>> Why should we announce tiny recycled blocks? If
there is a /16 in the
>> swamp in which half the space is free but its all
/24's, why wouldn't
>> wouldn't we allocate all the free /24's to a single
entity and
>> instruct the entity to announce it as a
"holey" /16? The existing /24
>> holders will override (punch holes in) the /16 for
their /24's.
>>     
>
> Consider large ISP's that can no longer obtain from the
large blocks
> (e.g. /12 to /16) but instead must beg/barter/borrow
blocks from others
> which are several orders  of magnitude smaller (e.g.
/16 through /24)
> every week to continue growing...  such obtained blocks
would be
> announced into the routing system very rapidly as we
try to keep
> IPv4 running post depletion of the free address pool. 
When this
> inflection point is reached, how much headroom do we
have given
> equipment being deployed today?
>
> /John
Is there a possible revenue stream here for larger ISP's to
begin 
charging their customers for not aggregating, and creating a
penalty fee 
for each borken route?  We're running out of IPv4 space (and
I don't 
think this can be solved with IPv4).  We're running out of
routes for 
the Cisco Sup2 engine (among others), but unless someone
makes money on 
it, this won't be solved.

> Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 10:18:41 -0400
> From: Andrew D Kirch <trelanetrelane.net>
> Sender: owner-nanogmerit.edu
> 
> 
> John Curran wrote:
> > At 9:12 AM -0400 8/30/07, William Herrin wrote:
> >   
> >> On 8/30/07, John Curran <jcurranmail.com> wrote:
> >>     
> >>> I.E.  If at some time unknown around 2010,
ISP's stop receiving
> >>> new allocations from their RIR, and
instead use of many smaller
> >>> "recycled" IPv4 address blocks,
we could be looking at a 10x to
> >>> 20x increase in routes per month for the
same customer growth.
> >>>       
> >> John,
> >>
> >> Why should we announce tiny recycled blocks?
If there is a /16 in the
> >> swamp in which half the space is free but its
all /24's, why wouldn't
> >> wouldn't we allocate all the free /24's to a
single entity and
> >> instruct the entity to announce it as a
"holey" /16? The existing /24
> >> holders will override (punch holes in) the /16
for their /24's.
> >>     
> >
> > Consider large ISP's that can no longer obtain
from the large blocks
> > (e.g. /12 to /16) but instead must
beg/barter/borrow blocks from others
> > which are several orders  of magnitude smaller
(e.g. /16 through /24)
> > every week to continue growing...  such obtained
blocks would be
> > announced into the routing system very rapidly as
we try to keep
> > IPv4 running post depletion of the free address
pool.  When this
> > inflection point is reached, how much headroom do
we have given
> > equipment being deployed today?
> >
> > /John
> Is there a possible revenue stream here for larger
ISP's to begin 
> charging their customers for not aggregating, and
creating a penalty fee 
> for each borken route?  We're running out of IPv4 space
(and I don't 
> think this can be solved with IPv4).  We're running out
of routes for 
> the Cisco Sup2 engine (among others), but unless
someone makes money on 
> it, this won't be solved.

When customers start having problems due to router RIB
and/or FIB
overflow, they will seek other providers. So someone will
make money and
someone else will lose it. Economics works well when things
break
(hardware). 

Of course, what happens when there is simply no IPv4 space
is another
issue as there will be no new space for anyone. But some
providers will
run out of their allocations long before others. If those
who run out
have resources, the market in IPv4 addresses (which does not
exist since
addresses are just numbers and not property) will get very
active and
will provide its own incentives which may or may not be
stabilizing or
beneficial. 
-- 
R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer
Energy Sciences Network (ESnet)
Ernest O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley
Lab)
E-mail: obermanes.net			Phone: +1 510 486-8634
Key fingerprint:059B 2DDF 031C 9BA3 14A4  EADA 927D EBB3
987B 3751