Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: > On 27-mrt-2006, at 23:51, Austin Schutz wrote: > > >>> Your long term view is irrelevant if you are unable to meet short > >>> term > >>> challenges. > > >> very true. but at the same time, it's not enough to meet short term > >> challenges without providing a path to something that is > >> sustainable in > >> the long term. > > > This is reasonable, but there is no realistic path to ipv6 that the > > known world can reasonably be expected to follow. > > Well, if you look at the rate at which the IPv4 address space is > being used up, something will have to give at some point. Last year > 168 million IPv4 addresses were given out by the RIRs. That's about > 4.5% of the 3706 million usable IPv4 addresses, with 60.2% gone as of > 2006-01-01 and 1465 million addresses still available. (Give/take a / > 8 because of inconsistent IANA/ARIN records.) > > In the past 10 years, there have been several years where the growth > of the growth was less than the year before: > > 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 > 2.7 1.2 1.6 1.2 2.1 2.4 1.9 2.4 3.4 4.5 > > (The numbers represent the number of addresses used up in that year > as a percentage of the 3.7 billion total usable IPv4 addresses.) Part of the problem here is that the allocation bundles don't map well into nice clean annual buckets. It is the overall trend that matters, not the fact that any given year had a higher or lower growth rate. > > Those years where the growth was smaller than the year before never > happened twice or more in a row. > > This basically means that unless things take a radical turn, the long- > term trend is accelerating growth so that remaining 40% will be gone > in less than 9 years. Probably something like 7, as Geoff Huston > predicts. While the exact date of exhaustion is impossible to predict, Geoff's 2012 target is presented to placate those in serious denial. The fundamental burn rate has been compound growth since 2000, and there is no reason for it to slow. In fact at the past NANOG meeting John asked if anyone saw reason for ARIN to pursue modifying the policy, and there was dead silence as no organization was willing to slow their business model for 'the global good'. At the same time, arriving at a lifetime anywhere near 2012 for the remaining pool takes dividing it by a constant rate of ~.75 /8's per month (the recent snapshot of cumulative outbound from the RIRs). On the other hand, applying the effective 5 yr+ historical compound consumption rate to the remaining pool shows that IANA runs out in late 2008 (http://www.tndh.net/~tony/ietf/5-yr-projection.pdf) at which point the RIRs collectively having 18 months on hand. Any given RIR may run out sooner or later than mid-2010 depending on their pool size and burn rate. All of this assumes no change in behavior, and the only predictable change at this point is a land grab. > > When this happens, it will become extremely hard to find IPv4 > addresses for new stuff, so many people/devices will have to share a > single address through NAT. Today, NAT mostly works because it's not > too hard to find someone who isn't NATed to coordinate the > communication. With IPv4 depleted that situation will change for any > new deployments, so NAT headaches will increase rapidly. (Bittorrent > with half the peers behind NAT is no problem. Bittorrent with all the > peers behind NAT is suboptimal. Bittorrent with everyone including > the tracker behind NAT makes you want to look up the meaning of > "sneakernet".) At that point, it becomes a no-brainer to add IPv6 to > bypass the IPv4 NAT and soon people who still have enough IPv4 space > will want to use IPv6 too because that gives them easier access to > people who don't have an IPv4 address. > > At this point ISPs will want to provide IPv6 services too because > without that, IPv4-starved ISPs have a very hard time competing with > IPv4-rich ISPs. With IPv6 they're still not on an even footing but at > least the distance isn't as great. While you are correct, this seems to understate the case. The compound consumption rate of the last 5+ years has been during wide deployment of nat. While many still disbelieve, there really are organizations that have exceeded the capacity set aside in rfc1918 and for business reasons are refusing to deal with multi-layered internal nat. They understand the real cost of this broken technology, and will not go there. > > In other words: even though we have significant NAT today, people who > need/want an unmolested IPv4 address today can have it without too > much trouble. When IPv4 addresses are gone, this will stop being the > case and IPv6 will start to look much more appealing. > > It would also help if by that time all software would work over IPv6. Unfortunately this is a case of the application dev community needing a serious wake up call. The unrealistically long lifetime projections for IPv4 don't help in this regard either. > > > but the ipv6 vs. NAT battle is over in the marketplace. > > For now. Even with NAT we need a constant supply of fresh IPv4 > addresses, which we're not going to have forever. > Don't worry! The hopelessly in denial, nat-solves-all believers will magically create a new batch in a couple of years when the current supply runs out... ;) Tony _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf