David Conrad wrote:
But we all know that not any amount of money will create more addresses as we currently have, so why not 1,000,000,000,000,000 dollar.
It isn't about creating more addresses. It is about using the existing addresses more efficiently. Given the widespread availability of NAT, how many addresses does the average organization actually need? Two (one for their NAT gateway, one for their publicly available services)? Particularly if they have a financial incentive to use address space more efficiently?
Assuming NAT financially mandated for new comers, it is not fair not to assume (or mandate) NAT for people currently requesting addresses. So, we should reduce allocated address block size a lot well before we start using the final /8. For example, if NAT reduces address requirement 1/256, an ISP having 65536 customers should be allocated just /24 or maybe /25 but not /16. If we do so now, IPv4 addresses will last almost forever, especially if we start allocating class E in the future before the final /8 (among classes A, B and C) is exhausted. Population does count, though very roughly. That is, though 4 billion may not be enough for requests from 7 billion people, 4 billion should be enough if the number of request is reduced 1/256. Masataka Ohta