[address-policy-wg] The final /8 policy proposals, part 2
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] The final /8 policy proposals, part 2
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] The final /8 policy proposals, part 2
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Leo Vegoda
leo.vegoda at icann.org
Wed Jul 8 17:40:17 CEST 2009
Hi Alex, Thank you for these numbers. I think they are very useful. On 08/07/2009 7:43, "Alex Le Heux" <alexlh at ripe.net> wrote: > size 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 > /16 0 0 1 0 0 2 > /17 2 0 1 1 0 0 > /18 3 1 2 3 10 2 > /19 12 3 7 4 12 10 > /20 23 25 28 23 44 23 > /21 54 51 56 89 100 52 > /22 236 260 260 260 399 192 This suggests to me that if the default allocation from a reserved prefix is a /22, as suggested earlier, then we should assume that there will be at least an extra 300-400 prefixes used per year just from people who will request PI and maybe add some more onto that from people who would have been happy with a PA assignment but won't be able to get it. I think reserving a /10 to be cut into /22s would underestimate demand for the space. I doubt it would last anywhere near five years. We should probably consider whether we reserve more space or divide whatever we reserve into longer prefixes, maybe /24s. Regards, Leo Vegoda
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] The final /8 policy proposals, part 2
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] The final /8 policy proposals, part 2
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]