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

On 26/09/2017 17:56, Erik Bais wrote:
>> 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...  ;-)  

Well, yes and no. We are talking about new entrants here, companies that
are fresh new on the market and usually this folx does not build a
huuuge network from the very start. If we forget the regulatory
restriction possibility in the future, a local residential network of
10k to 20k users is still not too bad for a starter and maybe that might
even encourage the increased competition to big-old-boys that will not
be able to get more IPv4 resources at all ;)

Cheers, 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
> 
> 
> 


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3976 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20170926/4d6bd6f7/attachment.p7s>