Well let us put it this way. The entities Ron's been thinking of have been doing this on the /15 scale for quite a while now, so I do think they should have quite a few /16s on the "use till it gets heavily blocked, get a new one from a RIPE LIR" principle. Three weeks here, three weeks there and you're looking at the best part of a year more at a conservative estimate. And I would be very interested to see just how much v6 space they have. Ron - noticed some? And please don't even tell me there's enough v6 space for everybody so we needn't worry about IP allocation at all, that is what we all thought back when class A, B and C addresses were being handed out, so we might as well learn from our past experience as from anything else. On Thursday, February 7, 2013, Gert Doering wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Feb 06, 2013 at 03:42:39PM -0800, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
So in the scenario described above, if in fact the LIR assigned an entire /17 to a single customer, where that customer only had a grand total of one router and one server, there would be nothing whatsoever that RIPE NCC could or would do, in reaction, in order to prevent or reverse this kind of colossal waste of that large chunk of the rapidly depleating resource known as the IPv4 address space. Is that correct?
Correct. The community decided that "focus on IPv6 deployment" is more important than spending lots of (paid by members!) respources trying to get back IPv4 scraps here and there, which would only delay the inevitable.
Aforesaid /17 would have made RIPE NCC's IPv4 pool last about 3 weeks longer - and in the end, no matter what we do, IPv4 would have run out, but we had burned a lot of extra effort trying to avoid facing IPv6.
Gert Doering -- member of the community -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
-- --srs (iPad)