At 04:22 PM 12/7/99 -0500, J. Noel Chiappa wrote:
> > From: Daniel Senie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > The counter argument is that for the Home Networking case, which is a
> > HUGE market, it is indeed cheap and easy to use. ... NAT can be used
> > for a variety of things. Perhaps we can agree that it's a good hammer
> > when the nail is a home network, and concentrate on what to do about
> > the large corporation issue.
>
>This relates to a thought I've been having over the last couple of days,
>which is that I recently read that the Internet usage numbers in many large
>cities in the US (sorry, no idea about the rest of the world, and in any case
>this point relates to ARIN only) is now at or over 50% of citizens - i.e. in
>the US, the logistic growth curve for that group (which ought to be the
>largest possible market segment) has started to tip over.
>
>So my question is: I've been hearing that ARIN is the stingiest of the
>registries when it comes to handing out IPv4 addresses - is there any valid
>reason for this extreme parsimoniousness (particularly when the plan is to
>move over to IPv6, so there ought to be no reason for extreme hoarding of
>IPv4 addresses)?
>
>Perhaps a little loosening of the address allocation tap at ARIN, when it
>comes to allocating addresses for non-home use, could make life substantially
>easier for the segment where some people are finding NAT making their life
>difficult?
>
> Noel
I wouldn't say that ARIN is stingy in how much address space it issues, we
allocate whatever an organization (any organization) can justify but they
must be able to justify at least a /20 (by whichever allocation/assignment
policy applies to them) or they will be referred to their upstream ISP.
This isn't done as much for conservation of address space as it is for
aggregation of routing table space. We recently lowered our minimum
allocation from a /19 to a /20 to allow more organizations to come directly
to ARIN for address space and are monitoring the effect on the routing
tables to see if we can continue lowering it in the future.
Kim
