[ppml] Combining Forecasts

[Michael K. Smith - Adhost]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: martin.hannigan at batelnet.bs [mailto:martin.hannigan at batelnet.bs]
> Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 8:48 PM
> To: Michael K. Smith - Adhost; David Conrad
> Cc: Public Policy Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [ppml] Combining Forecasts
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Michael K. Smith - Adhost" <mksmith at adhost.com>
> To: "David Conrad" <drc at virtualized.org>
> Cc: Public Policy Mailing List <ppml at arin.net>
> Subject: Re: [ppml] Combining Forecasts
> Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 10:45:30 -0700
> 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: David Conrad [mailto:drc at virtualized.org]
> > > Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 9:32 AM
> > > To: Michael K. Smith - Adhost
> > > Cc: Public Policy Mailing List
> > > Subject: Re: [ppml] Combining Forecasts
> > >
> > > > If we are going to use the forecasts to incent people
> > > > to move from IPv4
> > > > to IPv6 then we should be as accurate as possible.
> > >
> > > It is a bit challenging to model human behavior.
> > >
> > > How do you model a "run on the bank"?
> > >
> > > How do you model a transition of public space to NAT'd
> > > space as an effort towards conservation?
> > >
> > > Projections such as Geoff's and Tony's are useful, but I
> > > do not believe they are something you should bet your
> > > house on.
> > > Regards,
> > > -drc
> >
> > I think it's a matter of helping the community make
> > informed decisions based upon accurate forecasts.
> 
> I'm more concerned that policy changes will be implemented
> that shut out small to medium size networks long before
> exhaustion.
> 
> -M<
> 

Thinking out loud here.  In order to accommodate the relative size of
the organization and their associated use within the larger depletion
forecasts, the model would have to be broken up to show utilization
based upon organization size.  So, in ARIN's case, what are the
usage/depletion forecasts based upon utilization of:

- Micro /24 - </20
- Small /20 - /19
- Medium >/19 - /16
- Large >/16 - /14
- X-Large >/14

Perhaps grouping Micro, Small and Medium into Small, so we have Small,
Large and X-large, based upon the assumption that there is more mobility
between the three lower tiers (Micro to Small, Small to Medium, etc.)
than between the other two.  This would simplify the model a bit and
provide a basis for policies that reserve space for the small providers.

Mike