[address-policy-wg] 2017-03, New Policy Proposal (Reducing Initial IPv4 Allocation, aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2017-03, New Policy Proposal (Reducing Initial IPv4 Allocation, aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2017-03, New Policy Proposal (Reducing Initial IPv4 Allocation, aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Jan Zorz - Go6
jan at go6.si
Tue Sep 26 19:02:00 CEST 2017
On 26/09/2017 17:56, Erik Bais wrote: >> Now everyone will have to figure out if that's enough or not. :) > > That is clearly not enough... you are asking the obvious here Jan... ;-) Well, yes and no. We are talking about new entrants here, companies that are fresh new on the market and usually this folx does not build a huuuge network from the very start. If we forget the regulatory restriction possibility in the future, a local residential network of 10k to 20k users is still not too bad for a starter and maybe that might even encourage the increased competition to big-old-boys that will not be able to get more IPv4 resources at all ;) Cheers, Jan > > Erik > > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net] Namens Jan Zorz - Go6 > Verzonden: dinsdag 26 september 2017 10:27 > Aan: address-policy-wg at ripe.net > Onderwerp: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2017-03, New Policy Proposal (Reducing Initial IPv4 Allocation, aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space) > > On 24/09/2017 00:38, Sander Steffann wrote: >> ...or change the /22 to /24 and keep giving newcomers a tiny bit of >> addresses for a while longer (what is currently being proposed). > > Hey, > > A quick math what a /24 can give you if you use if for > translation/transition purposes only (NAT64 or A+P like MAP-E/T) > > If you connect to your upstream with *their* IP addresses and not break > your /24 into smaller bits and connect your NAT64 or A+P PRR box > directly to that BGP router, use first usable address as a gateway, > second address as an interface address for your translation/transition > box, then you are left with 252 usable addresses for your purpose. That > means 65.535 ports per address, giving you 16.514.820 usable ports. > Usually sane people predicts between 700 and 1000 ports per user, and > that gives you between 16.514 and 23.592 possible users that you can > serve at the same time and connect them to legacy IPv4 world. > > Now everyone will have to figure out if that's enough or not. :) > > Cheers, Jan > > > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 3976 bytes Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20170926/4d6bd6f7/attachment.p7s>
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2017-03, New Policy Proposal (Reducing Initial IPv4 Allocation, aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2017-03, New Policy Proposal (Reducing Initial IPv4 Allocation, aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]