[address-policy-wg] 2017-03, New Policy Proposal (Reducing Initial IPv4 Allocation, aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space)

> Now everyone will have to figure out if that's enough or not. :)

That is clearly not enough... you are asking the obvious here Jan...  ;-)  

Erik 

-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net] Namens Jan Zorz - Go6
Verzonden: dinsdag 26 september 2017 10:27
Aan: address-policy-wg at ripe.net
Onderwerp: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2017-03, New Policy Proposal (Reducing Initial IPv4 Allocation, aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space)

On 24/09/2017 00:38, Sander Steffann wrote:
> ...or change the /22 to /24 and keep giving newcomers a tiny bit of
> addresses for a while longer (what is currently being proposed).

Hey,

A quick math what a /24 can give you if you use if for
translation/transition purposes only (NAT64 or A+P like MAP-E/T)

If you connect to your upstream with *their* IP addresses and not break
your /24 into smaller bits and connect your NAT64 or A+P PRR box
directly to that BGP router, use first usable address as a gateway,
second address as an interface address for your translation/transition
box, then you are left with 252 usable addresses for your purpose. That
means 65.535 ports per address, giving you 16.514.820 usable ports.
Usually sane people predicts between 700 and 1000 ports per user, and
that gives you between 16.514 and 23.592 possible users that you can
serve at the same time and connect them to legacy IPv4 world.

Now everyone will have to figure out if that's enough or not. :)

Cheers, Jan