Re: [sig-policy] prop-091: Limiting of final /8 policy to specific /9
(speaking for myself as always)
On 24/01/2011, at 1:40 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> The reality is there isn't one. IPv4 runout is the killer app. that will drive
> IPv6. (perhaps seriously aided by NAT444 being such a dismal
> perspective for the end-user).
>
hahahaha... :-)
> So, while I agree IPv6 has not been a rousing success just yet, my point
> was that you can't call it a failure over all yet. It hasn't really been put
> in the retail stores to see whether it sells or not just yet. It would be like
> calling the iPhone 4 a dismal failure before the 3GS was launched.
>
In the APNIC region it has been put out there. Prop-73 saw to that, and you can see the effect here:
http://stats.research.icann.org/rir/APNIC/IPv6/#v6_alloc_activity
But comparing the advertising and spin doctors efforts from Apple with IPv6 is unfair for both.
> IPv4 runout is going to be different and you know it. IPv4 runout is not going to be
> slow. There's no sign that things are slowing down towards IPv4 runout. Quite
Take a look at http://stats.research.icann.org/rir/APNIC/IPv4/
(be patient on load time, it does live query and the server running it isn't a huge box)
The data there is based on RIR stats. While there has always been a natural (almost linear *) increase in allocation rates,
I don't see a _huge_ jump. All of the RIRs (except LACNIC) exhibit this trend. (LACNIC appears to be fairly flat.)
I could fit a curved line to that, 2nd degree polynomial, but it would still be quite "flat".
> the opposite. People are starting to see the wall and they seem to be standing
> on the gas pedal hoping to get enough momentum to somehow blow through
> it. (I expect this effort will look a lot like a US NHTSA test at the end, as I'm pretty
> sure the runout wall doesn't have the ability to give, but, it will be interesting).
>
I'm not observing, from the daily RIR data, such acceleration. Are there other indicators you are looking at which suggests that?
Can you provide those? or is this a 'gut feel'?
>>
> It's going to be weeks, not months after IPv4 runout at the RIR level when people make the decision to circumvent this policy if they have to.
>
> People will adapt much faster than the policy framework will in this situation. Do you have ANYTHING to offer to suggest I am somehow wrong about this?
>
I have no data at this point to substantiate your view, nor the opposite. Which just reinforces that much of this is guess work, and I am decidedly uncomfortable with guesses.
>> I don't think that people will try to go to extraordinary lengths en mass. Maybe I'm naive in my belief of human nature. I suspect that if a major issue is discovered (and you might be right) there will be enough noise made by the industry to awaken our senses and alter the policy to open up that extra little /9.
>>
> It doesn't have to be en mass. It just has to be large enough to create about 8,000 new APNIC memberships. If you don't think
> that $LARGE_PROVIDERs desperate for address space will spin up a few dozen or a few hundred new "subsidiaries" to
> each go get their /22s rather than stop adding new IPv4 customers, I have to wonder if you have any experience in
> a capitalist economy.
>
Thanks for that assessment.
>>
>>> Yes, industry can react by taking extraordinary measures to work
>>> around the policy, but, if that is the case you are attempting to
>>> account for, then, doesn't it make more sense to fix the policy
>>> than to force the workarounds?
>>>
>>
>> Is it broken now? (not broken according to your scenario of +3-5 years of needs while v6 is deployed, but right now?)
>> I don't think it is. In time (3-5 years) it might _become_ broken. But I don't have your confidence in the forecast yet.
>>
> Yes... It is broken now. There's a /9 and then some held on a shelf that cannot be utilized by any mechanism other
> than circumventing policy. Failure to properly allocate available space will not look good to the outside world.
> Doing so in a manner that rewards only those organizations willing to subvert policy will look even worse.
>
I think what this really applies to the conditions in the policy about every member is entitled to a /22.
Perhaps focus should be there.
I'd also think that "properly allocate" has a range of definitions depending on who you ask.
>>>>
>>> If we don't have knowledge to make any call, then, we should distribute the space. We know it is needed. We don't know that it will ever be needed. The need you know should trump the unknown.
>>>
>>
>> It _may_ be needed. It isn't needed _now_
>>
> If it isn't needed, then noone will apply for it and APNIC will not distribute it.
>
> You're not making sense here.
I meant the extra /9 you wish to open up.
>
>> I don't think waiting the 6-7 months until we are in the thick of shortfall and near another policy meeting will be dire. I do think that the time in watching will provide enough knowledge on how to move forwards (or sideways).
>>
> I think you underestimate the speed at which runout is accelerating.
I don't currently see the acceleration. My personal predictions are Feb 2011 for the IANA pool. September this year for APNIC, Mid year 2012 for RIPE and ARIN. I'm not comfortable with my forecast of LACNIC and AFRINIC as they may run out in 2013. But hey, this is based on data I see now..
Cheers