[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2012-6: Revising Section 4.4 C/I Reserved Pool Size

[Christopher Morrow]

On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 7:37 PM, David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu> wrote:
> On 10/18/12 13:25 , Christopher Morrow wrote:
>>
>> I suspect that the normal operating procedure is to put one NS on each
>> /24(or48?), and likely a set of these per TLD.
>> You don't want some problem with atld to affect btld just because you
>> put them both on the same /24||/48 :(
>>
>> Looking at the rootzone (http://www.internic.net/zones/root.zone):
>> Zone count: 272
>> NSHost count: 1182
>> NSAddr count: 1620
>>
>> of the addresses there I see some re-use of the actual /32 || /128, 59
>> occurances of the same /32 or /128.
>> 488 v6 addresses
>> 274 unique /48s in that set
>>
>> 1132 v4 addresses
>> 713 unique /24s
>
>
> When I looked at this anecdotally, I though I saw way more of them with
> multiple servers per /24.  So thanks for making the counts, given this then
> we should be thinking about a bigger block for sure.
>

I was on the other end anecdotally... so I was happy to see some
numbers. they code I put together to get this I'll pop up on github or
something, in case people want to see for themselves or futz with this
over time.

>
>> I think the timeframe is not 2-5 yrs, but 'how long is it that v4 is
>> still relevant/required at the TLD level?" and I'd expect that to last
>> much further out than 2-5yrs... I was thinking at least 10 if not 20
>> yrs.
>
>
> I'm ok with a goal of 10 to 20 years, but then I think we need to be talking
> even a bigger block.

right, there's a balance between: "we tried to provide for a
reasonable situation for X years" and "welp, hit the xfer/black/etc
market today".

If marty's numbers for 1900 are valid (which they seem to be) and if
there are some large percent of that set that run new tlds for real, a
15 isn't going to cut it, and neither is a 14 (for long).

> I think Marty is right, that a /14 or more is necessary to deal with what
> ICANN is talking about, and that coincides with the 2-5 years I was talking
> about.  If we want 10 to 20 years worth I think we need to be talking about
> something more like /13 then.
>
> Either that, or push CI to make higher density use of the blocks.

I don't think they really can... for a single entity (one corporation
that buys a brand-tld) and runs their own service, they can hide their
stuff in their existing space. For someone who runs this as a service
for others, they can't afford to move things in times of stress and
they can't afford tlda to be down because tldb upset the elbonians
this week :(

-chris

>
>> thanks for the conversation so far!
>> -chris
>
>
> Yes, a good conversation.
>