[address-policy-wg] Mega-allocations

On 25-apr-2005, at 17:54, Rob Evans wrote:

>> Seriously: what's going on here?

> They filled in the forms and justified the address usage?

> Would you prefer they were using NATs?  I'm thinking large  
> allocations of real address space is a good thing. :-)

I'm sure there are projections that indicate this level of address  
use in the future for the allocatees in question. But does that  
necessitate giving out /10 or even larger blocks? At some point, the  
growth will end. When that happens, it's better that half a /12  
remains unused than half a /10. It's not like having /12s in the  
routing table rather than /10s is going to lead to undue growth in  
the routing tables...

Another look at the data shows that 1M and bigger allocations aren't  
entirely new: there are currently 80 allocations/assignments of a  
million or more addresses for a total of 172 million addresses.  
However, there is a significant upward trend. The number of addresses  
allocated/assigned in these blocks is:

Year    APNIC     ARIN   LACNIC  RIPENCC    Total
2000     1.05     9.44     0.00     2.10    12.58
2001     8.39    10.49     0.00     4.19    23.07
2002    11.53     4.78     0.00     6.29    22.61
2003    12.58     4.19     1.05    10.49    28.31
2004    15.73     9.76     1.05    11.93    38.47
2005    16.78    14.02     0.00    16.19    46.99

(That's right: we're already well past last year before the end of  
april.)