[ppml] Policy Proposal: Global Policy for the Allocation of theRemaining IPv4 Address Space

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

>-----Original Message-----
>From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of
>William Herrin
>Sent: Monday, July 23, 2007 12:12 PM
>To: Roque Gagliano
>Cc: ppml at arin.net
>Subject: Re: [ppml] Policy Proposal: Global Policy for the Allocation of
>theRemaining IPv4 Address Space
>
>
>Hi Roque,
>
>A predictable final allocation at the endgame seems reasonable.
>

I agree

>What are the current rates of consumption for each RIR? What is the
>size of the connected, partially connected and unconnected populations
>they serve?
>

Exactly.  After looking at this proposal what I can't exactly understand
is how is it any different than a policy requiring IANA to issue reports
at 2 month intervals to each RIR on the amount of IPv4 left for allocation,
and their projected runout date for that RIR, once IANA's forcasts indicate
that there is less than two years worth of IPv4 overall.

In other words, suppose IANA has 50 /8's left in 2008

RIR #1 is consuming /8's at 1 a year
RIR #2 is consuming /8's at 2 a year
RIR #3 is consuming /8's at 5 a year

Total consumption is 9 /8s a year

50/9 = 5 years left, thus runout in 2013

So in 2008 the projection indicates that in 2013 there will be 9 /8's left
and
RIR #3 will runout in February 2013, RIR #2 will runout in June 2013, RIR#1
will
run out in September 2013.

If runout rates change per RIR in 2009, then in 2009 the projections will be
different of course.  As runout is closer then runout rates will most likely
change, thus the need for more frequent projections.

Is there some fault in my mathematics?

Ted