Reply to post: Re: Time to claw some back

OK, this time it's for real: The last available IPv4 address block has gone

bombastic bob Silver badge
Unhappy

Re: Time to claw some back

part of the scheme uses an IPv4 /30 block, which basically wastes 3 of the addresses. In reality, a scheme that uses something _like_ PPPoE or some other kind of tunneling protocol would only require 1 IP address in a block of 255 to be a gateway address. The additional bandwidth you might get by having to NOT use a tunneling or PPP-derived protocol (maybe 5%, let's say) would be compensated for by a much lower price. The ISP would be able to sell 3 times (or more) as many fixed IPv4 addresses to customers that need them.

All of this being said, it's the lack of efficiency of small netblocks (particularly /30's that potentially waste 3 for every 1 that gets assigned) that's eating up the IPv4's I'd bet.

I still want everyone migrating to IPv6. It's just that the ISPs have been dragging their feet for SO long that it's likely I'll need to maintain a fixed IPv4 address for the short haul, at least. And I don't want to see them priced out of the range of affordability.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019