Re: [ipv6-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: 200 customer requirements for IPv6

[Iljitsch van Beijnum <]

On 7-dec-2005, at 12:13, McTim wrote:

> > In regard to IP addressing policy, it is sufficient for the
> > RIRs to start doing things more wisely. If the RIRs would open
> > up another 1/8th of the IPv6 address space for geotop allocations
> > then they would no longer be blocking this solution.
> IIUC, the RIRs don't have another 1/8 of the space to "open up".  they
> don't even have the whole of the first 1/8.  IANA holds the global
> pool.  The NRO *could* be helpful in lobbying for this, if their
> communities asked it of them.
When Michel Py and I worked on this, our design goal was to support 1  
billion multihomers, or 1 multihomed geographically aggregatable PI  
(GAPI) prefix per 10 inhabitants of the world in the year 2050.

We decided to assume upto 65536 regions with upto 65536 multihomers  
in them. That's over 4 billion and takes just a /16, with a factor 4  
margin for error and assignment inefficiencies.

It would be possible to increase to a slightly shorter prefix but  
that's not really needed in the forseeable future: we're currently at  
one in 25000 multihomers or lower in the US and Europe, so there is  
room for a factor 2500 growth before the /16 is depleted. Also, there  
is no reasonable way to do geographical aggregation within a  
metropolitan area, and at more than 1 in 10 we're quickly going to  
run into routing table problems within the world's largest cities  
(2.5 million multihomers in Mexico City...).


--
I've written another book! http://www.runningipv6.net/