On 30-mrt-2006, at 22:13, Austin Schutz wrote:
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.
This is much less time than I have seen in previous reports. If
this is accurate and consistent there is a greater problem than I had
previously thought.
You may want to look at Geoff's reports from 2003 and 2005 (and
observe the difference between the two). Between 2003 and 2006 the
growth was much larger than before 2003.
As for accuracy: the numbers keep jumping up and down so you can
pretty much massage them in either direction. These are the number of
addresses the RIRs allocated to (mostly) ISPs per month for 2005 and
2006, compiled from the stats published on their FTP sites:
9.26 M 2005-01
25.16 M 2005-02
17.24 M 2005-03
24.96 M 2005-04
16.67 M 2005-05
16.12 M 2005-06
11.11 M 2005-07
16.92 M 2005-08
8.80 M 2005-09
9.89 M 2005-10
5.78 M 2005-11
6.62 M 2005-12
8.95 M 2006-01
11.88 M 2006-02
14.59 M 2006-03
There are now 1428 million addresses still free, give or take one or
two /8s because of IANA/ARIN inconsistencies. So we can interpret
this as:
- maximum was 26.16 million/month, which gives us another 57 months
- average was 13.6 million/month, which gives us another 105 months
- average when ignoring bottom and top 3 values was 12.8, 111 months
But that's without accelerating growth, which certainly has been the
trend most of the time: since 1995, 7 out of 11 years saw more new
IPv4 addresses deployed than the year before, 3 less. Unfortunately,
the only way to discern a quantifiable trend here involves so much
smoothing of the data that the results become meaningless, IMO. That
said, with no growth in address usage, we'll be out in 2015 and since
1997, there has always been growth over any three year period. With
_any_ growth we'll be out of IPv4 addresses in less than 9 years. It
will take something as big as the deployment of CIDR to get us off
that track. And no, NAT doesn't even come close. (We went from 211 M
in 1991 to 63 M in 1994, since 1997 the biggest drop was about 25% in
one year that was made up for the year after that both in 1999 and
2002.)
There are plenty more interesting data points, such as the
observation that even though China and India are similar in
population, China has 77 million IPv4 addresses (just under the UK
and just above Canada) and India 6 million (just under Denmark and
just above Hong Kong). There is only one country with more addresses
per capita than the US (~4): the Vatican (8192 addresses for 1000
inhabitants). And even though the US tops the absolute and per capita
lists of address space holders, it still received the most addresses
of any country in 2005: more than the numbers two (Japan) and three
(China) together.
If that is indeed the case then the "enhanced nat" road for ipv6
begins to make much more sense, even in the nearer term.
I remember someone saying something about enhanced NAT here a few
days ago but I can't find it... What is it and what does it have to
do with IPv6?
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf