Geoff Huston wrote: > I would like to correct a few numbers in Tony's comments based on my work > in this area that Tony has referred to. > > The least squares best fit of advertised address space in the IPv4 domain > over the past 5 years is a consumption rate of 4 /8s per year, slightly > less than half of Tony's number To continue the refinement; as you frequently point out as well, there is a lag between request/assignment from the RIR and advertisement. Given that, the advertisement growth you are quoting does not account for the recent slope change in the IANA pool depletion I am referencing, and won't even start to do so for another 6-12 months. > > Even over the past 10 months the least squares best fit of data is a > consumption rate of 5.5/8's per year Let's be clear, consumption rate from the pool is not the same as advertisement rate you are basing your measurements on. The size of the advertised pool has absolutely no bearing on the size of the remaining stock held by IANA or the RIR's. The slopes may be on a time delayed track, but there is always the opportunity for addresses to be pulled from the pool yet never advertised. As my I-D on 1918bis points out there are organizations that have outgrown the available private space, so there only current option is to acquire public space they never intend to route. > > At this rate the central pool will exhaust in 2018, some 14 years hence. No, by your measure this is the date the advertised pool will be receiving all possible prefixes. As we have discussed before, there are two problems with these numbers, the first is that it assumes all currently reserved /8 prefixes can and will be used (by my count there were really only 78 useful ones left in August), and second that it assumes that someone will find and reclaim the ~13% of the space currently 'lost in the system' (the difference between the IANA reserved and RIR-assigned). > i.e. some 168 months hence. Allowing for an accelerating consumption rate > at an exponential rate brings this forward to 10 years, or 120 months. > (details of the analysis are at http://bgp.potaroo.net/ipv4/) > > (Of course you should consult your favourite oracle, mystic, soothsayer or > whatever for your own preferred version of the future.) We can probably all agree that the 'last IPv4 address' will never be acquired. Policies will become stricter until the price is so high that nobody can afford it; or nobody will care once the replacement is deployed. Tony > > regards, > > Geoff > > > At 07:38 AM 6/11/2004, Tony Hain wrote: > >Harald, > > > >I would like to congratulate you on your successes, and suggest you have > the > >opportunity to be the last chair to preside over active work related to > >version 4 of the IP protocol suite. With the publication of the tunneling > >drafts that v6ops has been sitting on, there is no further need to > discuss > >32 bit address objects. At the same time, there is really no further > >justification for any other IETF working group to be discussing 32 bit > >addresses in current work. With all due respect to Geoff's efforts to > >document the address growth rate in the routing system, even he > acknowledges > >that measure lags the allocation timeframe and assumes the RIRs will > recover > >all space currently considered lost. Given that IANA allocated 9 /8's > over a > >6 month period this year, coupled with the fact that only 78 /8's remain > in > >the useful part of the pool (ie: 52 month burn out), it should be clear > to > >everyone that products that rely on current standards activities will > appear > >in the market place after the central pool of 32 bit values has run dry. > As > >such I would recommend your legacy include an active review of all > working > >group discussions next week for items related to IPv4, followed by > closure > >of all 32 bit address related work items before your departure in March. > > > >Tony > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf > Of > > > Harald Tveit Alvestrand > > > Sent: Friday, November 05, 2004 1:20 AM > > > To: ietf@xxxxxxxx > > > Subject: Stepping down as IETF chair in March > > > > > > Thomas' note reminded me that there are probably some people who > haven't > > > heard this yet.... > > > > > > I'm stepping down as IETF chair in March, and I am not a candidate for > > > reappointment. > > > > > > It's been a great four years, containing lots of learning experience, > lots > > > of hard work and lots of joy - but after four years as IETF chair, and > ten > > > years total on the IESG/IAB, March seems an appropriate time for me to > > > leave this stage of my life behind. > > > > > > The IETF is a great organization. I will enjoy watching it continue to > > > grow > > > and prosper under new leadership. > > > > > > Thank you! > > > > > > Harald > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Ietf mailing list > > > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > >Ietf mailing list > >Ietf@xxxxxxxx > >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > > > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf