[address-policy-wg] The final /8 policy proposals, part 2

David Conrad wrote:

>> But we all know that not any amount of money will create more  
>> addresses as we currently have, so why not 1,000,000,000,000,000  dollar.

> It isn't about creating more addresses.  It is about using the  existing 
> addresses more efficiently.  Given the widespread  availability of NAT, 
> how many addresses does the average organization  actually need? Two 
> (one for their NAT gateway, one for their publicly  available 
> services)?  Particularly if they have a financial incentive  to
> use address space more efficiently? 

Assuming NAT financially mandated for new comers, it is not fair not
to assume (or mandate) NAT for people currently requesting addresses.

So, we should reduce allocated address block size a lot well before
we start using the final /8.

For example, if NAT reduces address requirement 1/256, an ISP having
65536 customers should be allocated just /24 or maybe /25 but not /16.

If we do so now, IPv4 addresses will last almost forever, especially
if we start allocating class E in the future before the final /8
(among classes A, B and C) is exhausted.

Population does count, though very roughly.

That is, though 4 billion may not be enough for requests from 7
billion people, 4 billion should be enough if the number of request
is reduced 1/256.

							Masataka Ohta