On Mar 5, 2010, at 11:55 PM, William Herrin wrote: > On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 10:44 AM, Joel Jaeggli <[email protected]> wrote: >> On 03/05/2010 05:24 AM, William Herrin wrote: >>> Joel made a remarkable assertion >>> that non-aggregable assignments to end users, the ones still needed >>> for multihoming, would go down under IPv6. >> >> A couple of months ago my then employer went to arin to get a direct v6 >> assignmentment. on the basis of the number of pops the resulting >> assignment was a /43. It'll be a while I imagine before another prefix >> is required. > > Ah, I follow your reasoning. I'll be interested to learn whether the > numbers agree. ARIN staff has reported before that the vast majority > of IPv4 end user assignments go to organizations which do not > subsequently return for additional assignments. In general it's the > ISPs who come back for more allocations... I wonder if the minority of > end-user orgs who do request additional space request enough > additional blocks to make a difference in the routing tables.
Well, between that, and, the fact that ISPs should be asking for additional space a _LOT_ less frequently and all cases should be more likely to get an aggregable expansion of their allocation/assignment now that we are delegating by bisection, I think both of those things will reduce the rate at which growth within organizations increases the routing table by quite a bit. Owen
