[arin-ppml] Just a reminder of some quick mathematics for IPv4 that shows the long term impossibility of it

[Joel Jaeggli]

On 5/13/11 11:30 AM, William Herrin wrote:

> Joel,
> 
> In 1971, Ehrlich predicted a maximum sustainable world population of
> 1.2 billion people. By 1994 Ehrlich raised the estimate to 2 billion
> saying, "the present population of 5.5 billion [..] has clearly
> exceeded the capacity of Earth to sustain it." Two decades later we're
> closing in on 7 billion actual souls the overwhelming majority of
> which are not expected to starve to death or otherwise suffer drastic
> harm due to insufficient planetary carrying capacity.

humans are allocated from a finite but quite large pool of oxygen carbon
hydrogen nitrogen and trace elements. we're not facing exhaustion
pressure of the building blocks.

> Don't be an Ehrlich, a population alarmist. NAT has scalability issues
> but with more than a decade's experience, we know what they are. NAT
> readily and cost-effectively scales the address-to-user ratio by at
> least two orders of magnitude (100x), more than enough for the 4x
> increase in Internet usage minimally needed to bring the rest of the
> world online.

the machines will outnumber the humans by a couple of orders of magnitude

> Not rocket science indeed.
> 
> Don't get me wrong: there are lots of good reasons why we -shouldn't-
> build out the Internet to 7B people using IPv4. Excellent reasons to
> push for IPv6 as our growth path instead. But the claim that IPv4 use
> -can't- expand via NAT is purely specious.

can't and have no interest in paying for it to do so are not the same
thing. besides you said can't, not I.

> I'm tired of hearing that
> outrageous claim from people who should know better. Makes you look
> like idiots and (annoyingly) distracts from the topics then under
> discussion.
> 
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
> 
> 
>