[ppml] Incentive to legacy address holders

[Scott Leibrand]

Leo Vegoda wrote:
> On 12 Jul 2007, at 12:31, Kevin Loch wrote:
>
>   
>>
>> The last time I looked at this, roughly 50% of the deaggregates
>> were due to inefficient allocation by RIR's (multiple prefixes
>> issued to same org) and the other half was some combination
>> of TE, laziness or incompetence.
>>     
>
> I've not done the research myself, but I remember Harsha Narayan's  
> 2003 research indicated that 89% of routing table prefixes were down  
> to what he called splitting and spawning, not RIR allocation practices.
>   

Some splitting is the result of RIR allocation practices, but that may 
not be apparent just from looking at the announcements.  For example, 
ARIN gives us about a /17 at a time, and we have to split that up and 
allocate it, usually as /20's, to our various ASNs.  If we didn't have 
to do the IPv4 justification thing, we could have a single aggregate 
(/16 or so) for each ASN.  In IPv6, we'll be able to split our /32 up 
into one subnet per ASN.

-Scott