[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

minimum IPv6 announcement size

Subject: minimum IPv6 announcement size
From: leo.vegoda at icann.org (Leo Vegoda)
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2013 11:53:13 -0700
In-reply-to: <CAP-guGUQw4N+WU3SEHVP7PWC2X6HM23Ycd=qB8VjiqYM8NMHSQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <[email protected]> <m2k3i6nlpv.wl%[email protected]> <[email protected]> <CAAYzVeH-Vf9nie5Qtj9gEbFA6UH3C+Mez8aF12kmLmgsMKU10w@mail.gmail.com> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <m2eh8biadm.wl%[email protected]> <CAP-guGVfgTJER_fVMiyaR58mVS7yUTbGiV3fYJFoSOWUwb3hSA@mail.gmail.com> <[email protected]> <CAP-guGUQw4N+WU3SEHVP7PWC2X6HM23Ycd=qB8VjiqYM8NMHSQ@mail.gmail.com>

William Herrin wrote:

[...]

> And yet we're allocating /19's 

If the stats published at
http://www.nro.net/pub/stats/nro/delegated-extended are to be believed
then the only two /19s were allocated in 2005 when the HD-ratio value in
the policy was lower. Looking at all the RIRs together another nine /20s
have been allocated and seven /21s.  There are just 51 allocations of
/22 of shorter prefixes.

Given that almost 17,000 IPv6 blocks have been issued, those 51 blocks
are really just a fraction of a percent and seem to represent the
exception and not the norm.

Leo
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5475 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20131001/8336eb5a/attachment.bin>

References:
- minimum IPv6 announcement size
  - From: rs at seastrom.com (Rob Seastrom)
- minimum IPv6 announcement size
  - From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin)

Prev by Date: minimum IPv6 announcement size
Next by Date: TWC / MTC broadband
Previous by thread: minimum IPv6 announcement size
Next by thread: minimum IPv6 announcement size
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread