Lee Howard wrote:
On 4/23/13 7:44 PM, "Geoff Huston" <gih@apnic.net> wrote:
On 24/04/2013, at 8:10 AM, Andrew Latham <lathama@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 5:41 PM, Valdis Kletnieks <Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu> wrote:
I didn't see any mention of this Tony Hain paper:
http://tndh.net/~tony/ietf/ARIN-runout-projection.pdf
ARIN predicted to run out of IP space to allocate in August this year.
Are you ready?
The prediction of runout business is extremely hard. All of these predictions are based on the basic premise that what happened yesterday will most likely happen tomorrow.
If I were any good at predicting things, I would use my powers for evil. Your model and Tony's differ largely on how many "yesterdays" are considered; and, Tony's new model weights yesterday more heavily than yesteryear, on the guess that recent history is more predictive than distant past history.
Indeed, the current set of actors appears to be different than the historical set, with a very different deployment-model/demand-curve.
Meanwhile. . .
actors. In the address world it was observed that less than 1% (its closer to around 0.5%) individual allocations account for more than half of the number of allocated addresses. This becomes a problem in the predictive models, as the dominant factor in address consumption is now the actions of some 20 or so very large entities.
Fortunately, very large companies are slow to change. Also, John Curran said during discussion at PPML of extra-regional allocations: "At the current rate, this is the majority of allocations
we're
making." So, a different 0.5% than most people are probably thinking of.
I believe he said this growth trend "Leads to a runout Q4-2013 or Q1-2014, with certainty."
Following a single largish allocation in early 2012 we've seen the ARIN address consumption rate increase somewhat, and the average rate of address consumption is currently around 2M addresses per month. If this rate of address consumption continues, the ARIN will reach its last /8 in early 2014, and if this rate persists, then the registry will exhaust its pool around the end of that year, or early 2015.
Sorry, is this to say, "If this rate of consumption continues" or "If this rate of increase continues"? I believe the difference is that several organizations are rapidly progressing through ARIN slow start, using their space in significantly less than three months.
I only looked at organizations that had multiple allocations larger than a /20 in the last 9 months. There may well be as many, or more that have had multiple /22,/21,/20 sequences in that window, but if they are that small at this point, they might never get to a /16 before the pool runs out if the larger ones keep going.
However, personally I find it a little hard to place a high probability on Tony's projected exhaustion date of August this year.
I was not trying to place any probability on the outcome, and would tend to agree with you that August 2013 is not particularly likely, but would say it much more likely than having anything left by August 2014. That said, a new set of players showing compound growth in short timeframes is not what the historical-model projections are based on, so we do need to look more at current behavior than the distant past.
I also have to qualify that by noting that while I think that a runout of the remaining 40 M addresses within 4 months is improbable, its by no means impossible. If we saw a re-run of the address consumption rates that ARIN experienced in 2010, then it's not outside the bounds of plausibility that ARIN will be handing out its last address later this year.
It largely depends on whether the new organizations getting address space hit a growth ceiling (or plateau). If they do so soon, we return to the nearly linear Potaroo Projection. If they continue to grow (especially if they represent a new business model and others follow suit) then the Hain Hypothesis holds.
There is another open question about the growth rate in the number of new players showing compound growth in deployments. It may not be that any of them individually gets large enough to make a significant dent on their own, but if there is compound growth in the number of new slow-start actors, you still have compound growth in demand, but you may not be looking in the right place to see why the numbers are large enough to matter. The really troubling thing that I don't get is why RR got a pile of little blocks rather than a /12 up front. I don't know if that is an impact of broken policy, internal deployment decisions about 'right size' allocations rather than intentional deaggregation, or trying to 'fly under the radar'. If it is a policy problem it might be worth trying to understand and maybe fix any long term impact on market transfers. Tony
Lee
thanks,
Geoff