past vs future use

[Karl Auerbach]

> [direct quote from the rfc]
> ---
> 3.1  Common Registry Requirements
> 
>    Because the number of available IP addresses on the Internet is
>    limited,

It's interesting that RFC2050 is premised on a limitation of addresses. 

The real issue that started all off this is not that we are running out of
addressing space (Frank Solenski's projections show we have about 20 years
before we hit the wall -- ask me sometime about how and where the original
calculation was made, it's an interesting story.)  Rather, the real issue
is the routing table expansion. 

While efficient utilization of addresses is important, it is not the only
concern. 

Perhaps an additional metric is whether an
allocation/delegation/assignment can be made that doesn't add additional
routing table entries.

For example an ISP that needs an additional /19 to add to their existing
/19 might need to trade in their old /19 in order to get a /18.  That way
the number of routing table entries remains constant. 

That would change the system to one in which the registry (ARIN or an
intermediate level ISP) might have to withdraw previously delegated
address blocks and assign replacements in order to aggregate assignments. 

So perhaps an additional metric is whether one who desires an additioanl
block of addresses is willing to give up existing blocks in order to
obtain a larger, aggregated allocation. 

		--karl--