[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2012-6: Revising Section 4.4 C/I Reserved Pool Size
farmer at umn.edu
Thu Oct 18 19:37:37 EDT 2012
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 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
I'm ok with a goal of 10 to 20 years, but then I think we need to be
talking even a bigger block.
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.
> thanks for the conversation so far!
Yes, a good conversation.
More information about the ARIN-PPML