[arin-ppml] Set aside round deux

[Hannigan, Martin]

On 7/26/10 5:00 PM, "Owen DeLong" <owen at delong.com> wrote:

> I did read it... A little math...


> 
> Let's assume you're trying to use this for NAT64 boxes... At an estimated
> 5,000 customers per NAT64
> box (most people I've talked to are talking between 8,000 and 80,000 per box),
> to qualify for a /20
> using a single /32 per NAT box, you need 4,096 NAT boxes or at least 80% of
> 20,480,000
> which works out to 16,384,000 customers in order to justify a minimum
> allocation under this policy.
> 
> If you think that small providers have 16,000,000+ customers, we have
> radically different ideas
> of what constitutes small.
> 


That would be some very fuzzy math from my perspective. If the same network
that only needs a /32 for a NAT device also needs a /20 to use for purposes
defined on the acceptable use list then I think that they're in good shape.
If a network is so small and not expecting to grow at all in $time, I'm not
so sure why it wouldn't make sense for them to scrounge up an address or ask
their upstream for "one" (both of which are much more likely to be routable
at least in the early stages of transition).

Alas, I'm not really in a position to argue the min/max until I receive some
constructive feedback, which was the main purpose of the post.


Best,

-M<