[c-nsp] OT : IPv6 - Will it hit like an "avalanch"?

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net
> [mailto:cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net]On Behalf Of Ziv Leyes
> Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2008 5:29 AM
> To: Whisper
> Cc: cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> Subject: Re: [c-nsp] OT : IPv6 - Will it hit like an "avalanch"?
> 
> 
> I want to set an appointment with you in, let's say 10 years from 
> today and we can talk it over again
> Do you know how many of the IPv4 "allocated" addresses aren't 
> actually in use and are only held at the LIRs and RIRs IP 
> "storage basement" for future use?

Yes, the RIR's know this.  Last I read it's about equivalent to
a 3-4 /8's.  That's a lot of IP addresses, but the RIR's are gulping
them down at around 2 /8's a year I think.

The largest number of "allocated but held" IPv4 numbers are in
the United States for obvious reasons.  Politically it would
rather difficult to pry them free.  Also they are not organized
in a nice large subnet, but rather a collection of subnets randomly
scattered throughout the IP space.  It is unlikely that the work
to collect them all up would be worth it.  It might possibly help
some of the really small ISP's who are short IPv4 to be able to
hang on another 3-4 years without going to IPv6.  But it won't
do a thing to help out the large operators.

> This could happen in the future too, a single person can apply 
> for a million IPv6 addresses and perhaps he will get them, 
> because "there are som many, so what the heck, let him have 'em"

Remember there is a yearly fee that has to be paid for allocations.
Setting aside the requirements to meet the justifications for allocations,
just getting them and sitting on them and doing nothing with them
would be rather costly.

Keep in mind there's a fundamental difference in IPv4 allocations
from IPv6 allocations.  In the early days of the Internet, there
was no yearly fee to keep IPv4 allocated.  As a result if IANA
assigned an IP block and the org that got it disappeared, there was
no easy way to say "these guys aren't using this number block anymore,
we will take it back and put it back in the pool"  When the RIR's
were created, the legal mess of trying to start billing IPv4 holders
who had existing assignments was deemed too complex to try to untangle.
The last thing they wanted was multiple lawsuits questioning the
authority of the RIR's to assign numbers.  So the compromise
was that previously allocated IPv4 would be left alone, but new
IPv4 would be billed.  Recently this has been amended so that
previously allocated IPv4 -must- be included in the utilization
calculations and justifications to get more IPv4.

Because so many of the old IPv4 holders had been assigned very large
IPv4 allocations, and had been extremely sloppy about them, it put
them in a difficult position regarding utilization calculations.  After
all it's kind of hard when you have 50 internal T1's all using
a /24 on the link, to claim your at 80% utilization of your IPv4.
This gave the RIR's a lot of negotiating power when people requested
new numbering.  I noticed for example a number of years ago Microsoft
had a /8 assigned, now it does not.  I am sure that this is a result
of pressure from ARIN on them to give it up.

With IPv6 all of it is billed out.  If an org disappears they
stop paying the bill and the IPv6 goes into default and is returned
to the RIR.

Ted