William Warren wrote: > That also doesn't take into account how many /8's are being hoarded by > organizations that don't need even 25% of that space.
which one's would those be? legacy class A address space just isn't that big... > Geoff Huston wrote: >> Mike Leber wrote: >>> Since nobody mentioned it yet, there are now less than 1000 days projected >>> until IPv4 exhaustion: >>> >>> http://www.potaroo.net/tools/ipv4/ >> .... >> >>> ps. 1000 days assumes no rush, speculation, or hoarding. Do people do >>> that? >>> >>> pps. Of course these are provocative comments for amusement. :) >>> >> >> I keep on saying: its just a mathematical model, and the way this will play >> out is invariably different from our best guesses. So to say "well there's >> x days to go" is somewhat misleading as it appears to vest this model >> with some air of authority about the future, and that's not a good idea! >> >> IPv4 address allocation is a rather skewed distribution. Most address >> allocations are relatively small, but a small number of them are relatively >> large. Its the the timing of this smaller set of actors who are undertaking >> large deployments that will ultimately determine how this plays out. It >> could be a lot faster than 1000 days, or it could be slower - its very >> uncertain. There could be some "last minute rush." There could be a change >> in policies over remaining address pools as the pool diminishes, or .... >> >> So, yes, the pool is visibly draining and you now can see all the way to >> the bottom. And it looks like there are around 3 years to go ... >> but thats with an uncertainty factor of at least +/- about 1 1/2 years. >> >> regards, >> >> Geoff >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NANOG mailing list >> NANOG@nanog.org >> http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog >> > _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
