Did CIDR teach us nothing? was: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2006-01 Discussion Period extended until 19 June 2007 (Provider Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End User Organisations)

A couple of additional comments which I should have added in the
first place...

Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:

> On 23-mei-2007, at 11:47, Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet wrote:
> 
>> http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-54/presentations/
>> RIPE_NCC_Statistics.pdf
> 
> 
>> The bottom line is that the # of PI assignments has (considerably)
>> surpassed the number of PA assignments since 2003, and that the  load
>> on the
>> routing table for PI is thus bigger than for PA, although the 
>> *percentage* of
>> PI space as compared to PA is approx. 2%.
> 
> 
> (As a percentage of the address space, not a percentage of the number 
> of blocks.)

Correct.

>> Or, the other way 'round, we use more than 50% of (additional) 
>> routing table
>> slots for some 2% of address space (PI) and less than 50% for some 
>> 98% of PA.

Which of course is not necessarily the full story as there probably are
filters in place to prevent a good number of them to show up in the DFZ.

> And that's with IPv4, where you have to show you really need a block  of
> 256 addresses to qualify for a PI block.

Minor correction: you don't have to require a /24 equivalent to get PI.
Actually, that is the (imho important) cross-link to the proposal for
"upgrading" any smaller PI assignment to a /24 "if there are routing
problems".

Ref: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2006-05.html

Otoh, going classful again for PIv4 would change the 2%/98% ratio ;-)

> In IPv6, that hurdle has  been
> removed so it has the potential to see even larger numbers of PI  as
> soon as IPv6 deployment starts taking off.

Wilfried.