An informal survey... round II

Andrew D Kirch trelane at
Thu Aug 30 14:18:41 UTC 2007

John Curran wrote:
> At 9:12 AM -0400 8/30/07, William Herrin wrote:
>> On 8/30/07, John Curran <jcurran at> wrote:
>>> I.E.  If at some time unknown around 2010, ISP's stop receiving
>>> new allocations from their RIR, and instead use of many smaller
>>> "recycled" IPv4 address blocks, we could be looking at a 10x to
>>> 20x increase in routes per month for the same customer growth.
>> John,
>> Why should we announce tiny recycled blocks? If there is a /16 in the
>> swamp in which half the space is free but its all /24's, why wouldn't
>> wouldn't we allocate all the free /24's to a single entity and
>> instruct the entity to announce it as a "holey" /16? The existing /24
>> holders will override (punch holes in) the /16 for their /24's.
> Consider large ISP's that can no longer obtain from the large blocks
> (e.g. /12 to /16) but instead must beg/barter/borrow blocks from others
> which are several orders  of magnitude smaller (e.g. /16 through /24)
> every week to continue growing...  such obtained blocks would be
> announced into the routing system very rapidly as we try to keep
> IPv4 running post depletion of the free address pool.  When this
> inflection point is reached, how much headroom do we have given
> equipment being deployed today?
> /John
Is there a possible revenue stream here for larger ISP's to begin 
charging their customers for not aggregating, and creating a penalty fee 
for each borken route?  We're running out of IPv4 space (and I don't 
think this can be solved with IPv4).  We're running out of routes for 
the Cisco Sup2 engine (among others), but unless someone makes money on 
it, this won't be solved.

More information about the NANOG mailing list