On 25/09/2009 13:42, Alex Le Heux wrote:
2008-10 3266560 /11,/12,/16,/17,/18,/20,/21 2008-11 3047424 /11,/13,/14,/15,/17 2008-12 3274752 /11,/12,/16,/17,/18,/19,/20,/21 2009-01 6502400 /10,/11,/15,/16,/19,/20,/21 2009-02 4182016 /11,/12,/13,/14,/15,/16,/17,/18,/20 2009-03 2643968 /11,/13,/18,/20,/21 2009-04 2478080 /11,/14,/16,/17,/18,/20 2009-05 3629056 /11,/12,/14,/15,/16,/18,/19 2009-06 4540416 /10,/14,/16,/18,/21 2009-07 2844672 /11,/13,/15,/16,/18,/19,/21 2009-08 7272448 /10,/11,/13,/14,/15,/17,/18,/19,/20,/21 2009-09 1277952 /12,/15,/16,/17
taking this and http://www.potaroo.net/tools/ipv4/ into account, the run rate is between 2.5 and 3 /8s per annum; alternatively, a /8 will be gobbled up in about 4 months under normal circumstances. Turning this around, the "what do we do with the last /8" discussions really revolve around what to do with 4 months worth of address space. So, if people are proposing radical changes to the assignment policy, does it really make sense to do so for a mere 4 months of run-time. Or probably a lot less, if address stock-piling and panic sets in? I can't help seeing this as a knee-jerk reaction to the unknown. The current date-based suggestion in 2009-03 currently works out as starting the "Run Out Fairly" proposal about a year before IANA depletion, and 2 years before RIR depletion (according to Geoff Huston's estimates), with the 3 month window kicking at around the IANA depletion date and about year before RIR depletion, or given RIPE NCC's burn rate and proposal 2008-03, between 4 and 13 months before RIPE depletion, depending on how things pan out. I.e. if the RIPE NCC were to receive 2 x /8 immediately before IANA exhaustion, then there would be about 4.2*3 = 13 months space available. At the other end of the scale, if the RIPE NCC were almost exhausted at the time that IANA gets to its last 5 /8s, then there would be only a little more than 4 months address space available. Limiting allocations / assignments to 3 months worth of address space would be fine if we knew that this policy were to last around 12 months. However, if it were only to operate on 4 months worth of space, that would be a bad thing, because it would introduce new guidelines at a time of market consternation / panic. I'd like to propose that last minute tweaks are objectively bad - and 4 months is very last-minute. Please excuse the thinking-out-loud thing going on here. It just seems that we need to model RIPE's run-out process carefully so that we have a good idea of when IANA will assign the RIPE NCC its last /8s, and what policies are in place to deal with them (whether 2009-03 or "last /8" type). Has any modelling of this form been done within the NCC? Using naive projection, I'd suggest that the RIPE NCC may be in line to get 2x/8 in 2010-05, 2011-01 and possibly 2011-09 before it receives the last /8. Going by this finger-in-the-air estimate and Geoff Huston's prognostications, the RIPE NCC will either be at the end of its previous 2x/8 or will just be starting off on a new 2x/8 when it receives the last /8 disbursement. This would suggest that there is a significant risk that 2009-03 will end up running its 3 month requirement window period at a time when the RIPE NCC only has enough space for 4 months worth of assignments. I find that alarming. Nick