On Jul 29, 2010, at 10:41 AM, Stephen Sprunk wrote: > On 29 Jul 2010 12:19, Owen DeLong wrote: >> On Jul 29, 2010, at 8:00 AM, Matthew Walster wrote: >> >>> On 29 July 2010 15:49, Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com> wrote: >>> >>>> If we give every household on the planet a /48 (approximately 3 billion >>>> /48s), we consume less than 1/8192 of 2000::/3. >>>> >>> There are 65,536 /48s in a /32. It's not about how available 2000::/3 >>> is, it's hassle to keep requesting additional PA space. Some ISPs >>> literally have millions of customers. >>> >> If you have millions of customers, why get a /32? Why not take that fact and >> ask for the right amount of space? 1,000,000 customers should easily >> qualify you for a /24 or thereabouts. If you have 8,000,000 customers, you >> should probably be asking for a /20 or thereabouts. >> > > ... and paying sixteen times as much in assignment and maintenance > fees. See the problem there? > If you have millions of IPv4 customers, then, you're already paying that for your IPv4 space. Since you pay the greater of your IPv4 or IPv6 utilization, I think the larger you are, the less likely it is that you will be paying more for IPv6 than IPv4, even if you give your customers all /48s of IPv6 instead of /32s of IPv4.
>> It's not rocket science to ask for enough address space, and, if you have >> the number of customers to justify it based on a /48 per customer, the RIRs >> will happily allocate it to you. >> > > Yes. However, I don't think the RIRs are as willing to give out address > space for _potential_ customers, e.g. if a telco or cableco wanted to > assign a single block to each CO/head end to account for future growth. > OTOH, you can get address space based on a /48 per actual customer, then > actually assign a /64 per potential customer and have enough for massive > growth. > I believe you can actually do this to a pretty large extent within policy. The tricky part comes when you need more space and haven't met the HD Ratio requirements across the board. I agree there's room for improvement in the policy here. >> Why waste valuable people's time to conserve nearly valueless >> renewable resources? >> > > By creating artificial scarcity, one can increase profits per unit of > nearly-valueless, renewable resources. See also: De Beers and the > demonizing of artificial diamonds. > There are lots of opportunities to exploit people. I was limiting my comments to the layer 0-7 issues for the most part. I think optimizing the exploitation of customers is probably out of charter for this list. Owen
