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/[email protected]/
[address-policy-wg] RE: Private address space in IPv4 and IPv6 [was something irrelevantly titled]
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] RE: Private address space in IPv4 and IPv6 [was something irrelevantly titled]
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] RE: Private address space in IPv4 and IPv6 [was something irrelevantly titled]
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Gert Doering
gert at space.net
Sat May 30 13:59:57 CEST 2009
Hi, On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 11:03:16AM +0100, michael.dillon at bt.com wrote: > A very large number of organizations depend on these > internetworks, and they would not be terribly happy if > ISPs would hijack the entire IP address space for their > own profits. But I think that the RIR boards understand > this and have no intention of changing the rules to > reserve IP addresses only for the public Internet. Let me second that. This has always been my understanding on the principles that govern the RIRs' operation - "provide unique numbers to the people that need unique numbers". Be it IPv4, IPv6 or ASes. We have had customers in the past that needed unique IPv4 space, to be able to run their internal VPN networks without address clashes - and I think this is a very very reasonable reason to request globally unique address space. So did the RIPE NCC, and assigned IPv4 PI to them. Since we have enough address space in IPv6, this whole discussion is a bit moot - what would we gain if we change RIR operations to "only assign space that is required to be publically routed"? With the current rate that IPv6 /32s and /48s are handed out, we'll need a few 100 years to fill up the first 1/8 of the IPv6 address space (FP 001) - and if we notice in 50 years that our model is indeed too wastive, we can try again with FP 010 or one of the other 6/8 of the available IPv6 address space. Prefixes that *are* routed on the public Internet are likely going to be a bigger issue (due to limited routing table slots) than prefixes that are *not* routed. There's 500 million /32s in FP001, and if 99.9% of those disappears into hiding, we still have 500.000 potential routing table entries to worry about... (very rough math, neglecting more specifics and /48s, but those wouldn't change the point - non-routed space is not our problem here). So - can we please get back to somewhat more relevant topics? Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 128645 SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] RE: Private address space in IPv4 and IPv6 [was something irrelevantly titled]
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] RE: Private address space in IPv4 and IPv6 [was something irrelevantly titled]
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]