It's in the middle of a /20 allocated to Epik Networks, and he's only using roughly a /27 of it. I think the Internet will survive.
If ARIN did ever want to recover space, there are much bigger fish in the sea (I doubt Apple is using all 16.7 million IPs in their 17.0.0.0/8 allocation, for example).
Yeah, using a /30 per hop is a bit of a waste, but one /24 is still insignificant to the Internet as a whole, especially when it's in the middle of a parent allocation.
Presumably if Epik runs out of IP space in their /20, they'll just shut this down. It's not like some other company could use that /24.
Again, if ARIN/IANA really wanted to reclaim "wasted" space, they'd be looking at the holders of big blocks like /8-16, and asking them to justify usage, not one random /24 which is ultimately insignificant.
By that logic, petit theft is fine since the police should be looking for people committing grand theft and the petit theft is "ultimately insignificant"
It's reasons like this why people now have to fill out forms justifying the need for additional IPv4 blocks.
Your analogy is nonsensical, since this is in no way "theft". He's borrowing some IP space inside an already allocated /20 that Epik isn't using at the moment.
Epik already went to ARIN, said "we need a /20 to meet our IPv4 needs", filled out the paperwork to justify the allocation, and ARIN said "yes". Out of those 16 /24's, they have one that doesn't have any hosts on it at the moment, so they let him play with it.
The only people this MIGHT be hurting is Epik, if they need to justify getting more space from ARIN at some point. For the other millions of people on the Internet: it's awesome. Lighten up and enjoy it.
Considering computers double in power every 18 months, most people stopped caring about IPv6's extra overhead in 1994.
(At some level, 128 > 32, so unless all the algorithms used for routing are constant-time over the addresses, IPv6 will always cost more. But if you add up a bunch of layers of NAT, that's not free either. So this argument boils down to "if nobody used the Internet, it would require less hardware to run". Well, yeah.)
while what you are saying is true, the upper bounds of all things limit the costs required to deploy infinite amounts of memory and processor cycles at scale.
As always, a happy medium is required. That being said, once you boot up another stack, allocate various caches, and have your engineers maintain an additional set of configuration, the costs come down. But for ~10k routes, the costs to route those ips is greater than routing v4.
Comments
If only ARIN started to revoke IPv4 blocks based on this kind of waste.
It's in the middle of a /20 allocated to Epik Networks, and he's only using roughly a /27 of it. I think the Internet will survive.
If ARIN did ever want to recover space, there are much bigger fish in the sea (I doubt Apple is using all 16.7 million IPs in their 17.0.0.0/8 allocation, for example).
He's using much more than a /27
Each hop is using a /30. There's 47 useless hops in the mix before reaching the end.
That's 188 IP addresses just wasted. Much, much more than a /27. In fact that's 6 times the waste of a /27.
Yeah, using a /30 per hop is a bit of a waste, but one /24 is still insignificant to the Internet as a whole, especially when it's in the middle of a parent allocation.
Presumably if Epik runs out of IP space in their /20, they'll just shut this down. It's not like some other company could use that /24.
Again, if ARIN/IANA really wanted to reclaim "wasted" space, they'd be looking at the holders of big blocks like /8-16, and asking them to justify usage, not one random /24 which is ultimately insignificant.
By that logic, petit theft is fine since the police should be looking for people committing grand theft and the petit theft is "ultimately insignificant"
It's reasons like this why people now have to fill out forms justifying the need for additional IPv4 blocks.
Your analogy is nonsensical, since this is in no way "theft". He's borrowing some IP space inside an already allocated /20 that Epik isn't using at the moment.
Epik already went to ARIN, said "we need a /20 to meet our IPv4 needs", filled out the paperwork to justify the allocation, and ARIN said "yes". Out of those 16 /24's, they have one that doesn't have any hosts on it at the moment, so they let him play with it.
The only people this MIGHT be hurting is Epik, if they need to justify getting more space from ARIN at some point. For the other millions of people on the Internet: it's awesome. Lighten up and enjoy it.
(edit: grammar)
'by that logic' is a phrase i see and immediately judge whoever said it as closedminded who's opinions are now worthless
I think you're going a little over the top there.
Yes, this is a perfectly good class C network wasted. What a shame.
It's a shame that people are still (incorrectly) using the term "class C" 15+ years since classless addressing has been address too. =)
It's a shame people still value and use IPv4 addresses when IPv6 has been around for 15+ years....
It's a shame people don't understand that IPv6 addresses are ~twice as costly to route.
Not all things that are better are free.
Are you joking?
Citation?
Considering computers double in power every 18 months, most people stopped caring about IPv6's extra overhead in 1994.
(At some level, 128 > 32, so unless all the algorithms used for routing are constant-time over the addresses, IPv6 will always cost more. But if you add up a bunch of layers of NAT, that's not free either. So this argument boils down to "if nobody used the Internet, it would require less hardware to run". Well, yeah.)
while what you are saying is true, the upper bounds of all things limit the costs required to deploy infinite amounts of memory and processor cycles at scale.
As always, a happy medium is required. That being said, once you boot up another stack, allocate various caches, and have your engineers maintain an additional set of configuration, the costs come down. But for ~10k routes, the costs to route those ips is greater than routing v4.
touché :)