This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/address-policy-wg@ripe.net/
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)
- Previous message (by thread): 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)
- Next message (by thread): 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)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Son Tran
son at apnic.net
Thu May 24 15:40:36 CEST 2007
Hi Mohacsi Here is the statistic for PI (assignment) vs PA (allocation) for APNIC region. If you need more information please let us know. Year Number of PI Number of PA 2000 23 354 2001 36 337 2002 44 282 2003 62 368 2004 68 478 2005 118 576 2006 103 727 2007 49 244 We don't have the PI policy until 2000. Regards Son Mohacsi Janos wrote: > > > > On Wed, 23 May 2007, Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet wrote: > >> Sascha, >> >> Sascha Lenz wrote: >> >> [...] >> >>> P.S.: Anyone got any recent numbers about the percentage of PI >>> announcements in the table vs. PA announcements + deaggregates? >>> >> that's probably not the fully adequate answer, but I considered the >> info in the following two slides (page 9 and 10) as very interesting >> in this context: >> >> 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%. >> >> 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. > > Are there similar statistics in the other RIR area? If the picture is > similar we have in RIPE region, then we have think over PI address > policy.... > > Only my 2 cents.... > > Janos Mohacsi > Network Engineer, Research Associate, Head of Network Planning and Projects > NIIF/HUNGARNET, HUNGARY > Key 70EF9882: DEC2 C685 1ED4 C95A 145F 4300 6F64 7B00 70EF 9882 > -- -------------------------------------------------------------------- Son Tran email: son at apnic.net Policy Development Manager, APNIC sip: son at voip.apnic.net http://www.apnic.net phone: +61 7 3858 3100 fax: +61 7 3858 3199 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 3405 bytes Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20070524/38ae4cbd/attachment.bin>
- Previous message (by thread): 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)
- Next message (by thread): 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)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]