RE: Where to buy Internet IP addresses

["TJ" <trejrco () gmail com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joe Maimon [mailto:jmaimon () ttec com]
> Sent: Monday, May 04, 2009 10:04 AM
> To: Joe Greco
> Cc: nanog list
> Subject: Re: Where to buy Internet IP addresses
>
>
>
> Joe Greco wrote:
>
> > One of the goals of providing larger address spaces was to reduce (and
> > hopefully eliminate) the need to burn forwarding table entries where
> > doing so isn't strictly necessary.  When we forget this, it leads us
> > to the same sorts of disasters that we currently have in v4.
> >
> > ... JG
>
> And if you are encouraging /48 handouts, /32 isnt large enough to prevent
that
> on the global level.


If you are handing out /48s then 
        if have more than 64k clients (or will in the next few years) then
                You should ask (or should have asked) for more than a /32


(Need 128k clients? == /31)
...
(Need 512k clients? == /29)
...
...
...
(Need ~512,000k clients? == /19)        
        And, again, each of those clients has 64k subnets.
        With each subnet supporting as many hosts as they want to put there.

And, we can allocate 2^16 (64k) of THOSE (/19) sized allocations from the
CURRENT (2000::)/3.
        IMHO - While that should last us a "long time", we can follow that
up with 4000::/3 - and revisit policies then, as needed.

And, we could do something like use /56s for home-users and the math above
"shifts larger" ... 



Ask, and ye shall receive.
/TJ