On Jan 25, 2011, at 4:20 PM, Tony Hain wrote:
Owen DeLong wrote:
...... I suspect that there are probably somewhere between 30,000 and 120,000 ISPs world wide that are likely to end up with a /32 or shorter prefix.
A /32 is the value that a start-up ISP would have. Assuming that there is a constant average rate of startups/failures per year, the number of /32's in the system should remain fairly constant over time.
Every organization with a *real* customer base should have significantly shorter than a /32. In particular every organization that says "I can't give my customers prefix length X because I only have a /32" needs to go back to ARIN today and trade that in for a *real block*. There should be at least 10 organizations in the ARIN region that qualify for a /20 or shorter, and most would likely be /24 or shorter.
As Owen said earlier, proposal 121 is intended to help people through the math. Please read the proposal, and even if you don't want to comment on the PPML list about it, take that useless /32 back to ARIN and get a *real block* today.
Tony
Unfortunately, it's hard for them to do that *today*. That's the other thing proposal 121 is intended to do is help ARIN make better allocations for ISPs. Indeed, a key part of my quoted paragraph above was the "or shorter" phrase. Even in that scenario, though, I expect a typical ISP will use a /28, a moderately large ISP will use a /24, a very large access provider might use a /20, and only a handful of extremely large providers are likely to get /16s even under the generous criteria of proposal 121. Fully deployed, the current internet would probably consume less than a /12 per RIR if every RIR adopted proposal 121. The 50 year projections of internet growth would likely have each RIR invading but not using more than half of their second /12. Even if every RIR gets to 3 /12s in 50 years, that's still only 15/512ths of the initial /3 delegated to unicast space by IETF. There are 6+ more /3s remaining in the IETF pool. Owen