With the limited amount of data available (since this effect only started over the last year or so), you can fit about every curve you like into it - exponential, linear, quadratic. None will be a very reasonable projection.
So we can't say exactly "there are progressive IPv4 exhaustion" and we have nothing to worry about right now. Yes? 09.06.2015, 18:58, "Gert Doering" <gert@space.net>:
Hi,
On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 06:51:01PM +0300, Vladimir Andreev wrote:
> The reason for this policy is to make sure that the community keeps to > the *intent* of the "last /8" policy: ensure that newcomers in the market > will have a bit of IPv4 space available to number their translation gear > to and from IPv6. It will not completely achieve that, of course, but > make the obvious loophole less attractive.
Earlier I already said that fast-trade takes away only 3% of last /8.
Today Ciprian Nica showed that there is NO exponential grow of transfers from last /8 and also calculated that transferred IP's from last /8 represent only 1.83% of all transferred IP's.
So what is this proposal about?
The growth in trade is VERY clearly visible.
With the limited amount of data available (since this effect only started over the last year or so), you can fit about every curve you like into it - exponential, linear, quadratic. None will be a very reasonable projection.
But it's actually good that only 3% of the last /8 has been fast-traded away: let's keep it that way.
Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
-- With best regards, Vladimir Andreev General director, QuickSoft LLC Tel: +7 903 1750503