[arin-ppml] Statistics request regarding new entrants (was: Re: Stats request)

[Owen DeLong]

On Nov 28, 2013, at 06:33 , mcr at sandelman.ca wrote:

> 
> Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>> In my experience there is a wide variance in the diligence of upstreams
>> in processing these returns which ranges from an extreme of not even
>> noticing that the space was returned and only removing it from SWIP or
>> RWHOIS under substantial pressure from the (often now desperate)
>> downstream that long since returned the space to the other extreme of
>> placing it readily into their free pool and allocating almost
>> immediately to new customers with all manners of variation between
>> those two extremes.
> 
>> In my estimation (which is fairly close to a SWAG but based on
>> significant industry experience and conversations with a number of
>> providers over many years), there are far more providers somewhere
>> closer to the extremely inattentive end of the spectrum than the
>> aggressively recycling end of the spectrum.
> 
> If upstream tends to ignore, then what's the point of making the downstream
> return?    Seriously.
> 
> It's in upstream's interest to ignore, as it makes it is easier for them to
> qualify for another block if they don't notice they have spare.
> 
> So it seems to me that ARIN needs to do an audit on blocks returned to
> upstream should upstream ask for more space.  

I believe that happens, but not all upstreams end up asking for more space.

> 
> Maybe there is a lot more space out there available for new entrants than we
> think.   

If you measure it in terms of the number of years of useful life for IPv4 gained
vs. the number of years required to reclaim said space, it's most definitely a
strongly losing proposition.

In reality, IPv4 has been on life support, circling the drain for many years. The
first nails in the coffin came with the first implementations of NAT when we
(unfortunately) made the shift from a peer to peer network to an entirely client/
content provider model which has not actually served us all that well. There are
many applications and capabilities that have been severely hindered by this
model.

If you want to see significant examples, you can look at any of the various home
automation, health care, and other connected devices. Even home entertainment
services like TiVO are severely hampered by this situation.

On the other hand, services like "Back to My Mac" and "Go To My PC", etc.
wouldn't exist if it weren't for the need to overcome the limitations created by
NAT, so I suppose some would argue that is a good thing. To me, it just seems
like an additional unnecessary cost.

Owen