[arin-ppml] fair warning: less than 1000 days lefttoIPv4 exhaustion

Bill Darte BillD at cait.wustl.edu
Mon May 5 14:59:00 EDT 2008


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ted Mittelstaedt [mailto:tedm at ipinc.net] 
> Sent: Monday, May 05, 2008 12:40 PM
> To: Bill Darte; 'Geoff Huston'; 'Paul Vixie'
> Cc: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: RE: [arin-ppml] fair warning: less than 1000 days 
> lefttoIPv4 exhaustion
> > The range 1.5-4.5 is perhaps scarier....
> To whom?
> You know the interesting thing about this is that the ONLY 
> people who are scared about IPv4 runout are those who have a 
> GROWING need for IP addresses.

The law of unintended consequences affects not only primarly players in
Preparations for business as usual is always a strategic problem.
Not engaging the issue of IPv4 runout and IPv6 adoption, changed
transfer policy and perterbations in the governance roles of the
Internet are issues that 'may' make an impact on organizations and
individuals not matter how hard they try to ignore them...I'm thinking.

> Not all ISPs out there have this.  Some ISP's are not 
> growing, they are shrinking.
> Others are neither growing nor shrinking but are steady 
> state.  Some have a lot of wasted IPv4 internally due to 
> allocation schemes that no longer matched the current 
> reality.  Reminds me of a customer we had at one time on a 
> 56k line from a time period of something like 1994 to 2005 - 
> after the initial 2 year contract was up with them, they went 
> month-to-month and from that point on refused to resign a 
> contract - we were charging them around $300 a month for a 
> 56k point to point circuit and we did so for 11 years - their 
> hangup?  We had assigned them a /24 of IPv4 (199.248.255.x) 
> and they did not want to renumber out of it, and they even 
> had a firewall and none of these numbers were accessible from 
> the outside.  Do you think we would have ever sent them a 
> letter saying we were forcing them to renumber?  Hell no!  
> I'll take $300 for a 56k dedicated line any day.
> And to top it off the subnet itself is currently in 
> limbo-land, unused, unadvertised, and will likely never be 
> corrected since the admin contact on it is on a domain for an 
> out-of-business company that's currently held by a speculator.
> I'm quite sure there's a lot of ISP's out there that over the 
> years have had stuff like this going on - they are satisfying 
> their internal growth needs by more efficient utilizations.  
> IPv4 runout isn't going to immediately affect these organizations.
> From my seat by the fire the orgs that are going to be 
> screwed are the ones that have very rapidly growing networks 
> that consume enormous numbers of IP addresses.  And those 
> orgs are the ones that have the bulk of the IPv4 tied up, in 
> my opinion.  When IPv4 runout happens, they will be forced to go to
> IPv6
> since there will be no other answer for them - they won't be 
> able to "buy"
> on the open market sufficient IPv4 to meet their needs, even 
> if there was an "IPv4 market".  And once they switch over to 
> IPv6, why then the IPv4 that they discard will go back to the 
> RIRs - and be available for hand-out again.
> It won't be in blocks large enough to satisfy these kinds of 
> orgs, but it will be in blocks large enough to satisfy the 
> needs of the smaller orgs.
> Ted

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list