Eric,
"Fleischman, Eric W" wrote:
>
> A few questions for the list:
> 1) If we effectively ran out of addresses when RFC 1597 was published, has running
>out of addresses hurt us in any way?
I believe so, as discussed in
draft-carpenter-transparency-04.txt
draft-ietf-iab-ntwlyrws-over-01.txt
draft-iab-nat-implications-04.txt
draft-ietf-nat-protocol-complications-01.txt
among others.
> 2) Originally we had anticipated using IPv6 to save us from IPv4 address depletion.
>What's the status of IPv6?
Pretty good, in terms of standards and preliminary code. Only just starting,
in terms of deployment.
> How does IPv6 traffic compare in volume with IPv4 traffic?
Negligible so far.
> Do non-IPv6-supporting vendors (e.g., Microsoft) have plans to eventually support
>IPv6?
Ask them.
> 3) Given the current situation of corporations using private addresses internally
>and a smaller set of global IPv4 addresses on their periphery, and a global IPv4
>internet, one should theoretically be able to say how many public IPv4 addresses have
>been assigned and therefore how many remain unassigned and by so doing estimate how
>long until consumption. Why is this not possible in practice?
It's entirely possible, but the answer depends on which curve you choose to fit
to the data. That's why the answers given at the July IAB workshop ranged from
2 to 20 years. But whatever the answer is, it obscures the real problems
described in the above documents.
Brian
>
> > ----------
> > From: Brian E Carpenter[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Friday, November 26, 1999 1:35 PM
> > To: Randy Bush
> > Cc: Bill Manning; Pete Loshin; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: IP network address assignments/allocations information?
> >
> > Well, let's not focus on Bill's data. Frankly, I haven't seen any data
> > on this topic from any source that really convinces me that it
> > means much. All I know is that we have thousands of sites using
> > private address space, which completely falsifies any real data and
> > makes it impossible to attach any real meaning to concepts such as
> > "running out of addresses". My personal opinion is that we ran out
> > of addresses in practical terms around about when RFC 1597 was published.
> >
> > Brian
> >
> > Randy Bush wrote:
> > >
> > > > www.isi.edu/~bmanning/in-addr-audit.html
> > > > It does not cover specific /16 & /24 delegations, it just looks at
> > > > all of the SOA entries. Still, it does give a representation of how much
> > > > space is delegated.
> > >
> > > uh, as these data appear to be the statistics of an attempt to walk the
> > > dns in-addr.arpa tree what confidence is there that this fairly represents
> > > address space assignment/allocation?
> > >
> > > e.g. there are 153 /16 announcements in 133.0.0.0 and the table at
> > > http://www.isi.edu/~bmanning/in-addr-data.html shows one in-addr.arpa
> > > allocation entries.
> > >
> > > e.g. there are 166 announcements (of 175 /16 equivalents of space) in
> > > 147.0.0.0 and the table at http://www.isi.edu/~bmanning/in-addr-data.html
> > > shows 193 in-addr.arpa entries.
> > >
> > > so how can the data at www.isi.edu/~bmanning/in-addr-audit.html be
> > > interpreted to give a useful representation of how much space is
> > > assignmed/allocated?
> > >
> > > randy
> >
