nanog mailing list archives
Re: Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough?
From: Leo Bicknell <bicknell () ufp org>
Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2010 18:52:07 -0700
In a message written on Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 12:08:23PM +1200, Franck Martin wrote:
And doing guess-o-matic extrapolation, it will take another 3 years before we reach 10,000 ASN advertising IPv6 networks. That will be 33% of ASN. With the impending running out of IPv4 starting next year, seems to me we are not going to make it in an orderly fashion?
Which impending run out? IANA exhaustion occurs before RIR exhaustion; RIR exhaustion occurs before ISP exhaustion. ISP exhaustion occurs before end user exhaustion. [Ok peanut gallery, yes, there are 100 exceptions, work with me here.] So if you're looking at the data of IANA exhaustion and thinking an end user won't be able to turn on a new laptop and get an address, well no, that's wrong. Also note that some RIR's have an extremely slow burn rate, and their regions may have addresses for years to come. There has also been no real effort by ISP's or end users to squeeze internal allocations. ISP's who did "buy a T1 and get a /24" years ago may revisit that business model and in fact find many of those customers are using 3 IP's, an external mail server, a web server, and a NAT box. Right sizing those returns a lot of space to the useful pool.
Anybody has better projections? What's the plan?
While I don't think the we're as far ahead as we would like, I caution against taking the last few years of IPv6 numbers and "guestimating". We've had an unusually long period of early adopter time which dominates all current data. Also, plain linear and exponential models don't fit well as adoption curves are in fact S curves. While you can get linear and exponential models that look similar to the first curve on the S, it's no the same thing statistically. The sky is not falling, but a lot of people need to step it up if we're going to have any safety margin. -- Leo Bicknell - bicknell () ufp org - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
Attachment:
_bin
Description:
Current thread:
- Re: Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough?, (continued)
- Re: Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough? Dave Pooser (Apr 18)
- Re: Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough? Bill Bogstad (Apr 18)
- Re: Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough? joel jaeggli (Apr 18)
- Re: Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough? Adrian Chadd (Apr 18)
- Re: Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough? Patrick Giagnocavo (Apr 18)
- Re: Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough? Chris Campbell (Apr 19)
- Re: Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough? Owen DeLong (Apr 19)
- RE: Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough? Robert D. Scott (Apr 19)
- Re: Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough? Randy Bush (Apr 18)
- Re: Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough? joel jaeggli (Apr 18)
- Re: Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough? Mikael Abrahamsson (Apr 19)
- Re: Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough? Leo Bicknell (Apr 19)
- Re: Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough? sthaug (Apr 19)
- Re: Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough? Kevin Loch (Apr 19)
- Re: Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough? Mohacsi Janos (Apr 19)
- Re: Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough? Mark Smith (Apr 19)