[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

ipv4's last graph



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Barnes [mailto:richard.barnes at gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2011 10:44 AM
> To: Tony Hain
> Cc: Vincent Hoffman; nanog at nanog.org
> Subject: Re: ipv4's last graph
> 
> Note that the ARIN, APNIC, and RIPE lines should all basically level
> out to asymptotes after they hit 1 /8 left, due to the "soft run out"
> policies in place [1][2][3].  Either that, or just consider arriving
> at 1 /8 left as depletion.

The /8 that applies to those policies has not been allocated yet ... ask
again tomorrow.

Would it make more sense to mark the graph at 1 with an asterisk, or just
leave those out of this graph all together? If you care about how well the
policy is managing the end of the pool, then marking 1 is the right thing,
while if you only care about when 'old policy' stops then it makes more
sense to just leave them off.

Tony

> 
> Geoff: How are your graphs dealing with these policies?
> 
> [1] <https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#four10>
> [2] <http://www.apnic.net/policy/add-manage-policy#9.10.1>
> [3] <http://ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2010-02.html>
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 1:11 PM, Tony Hain <alh-ietf at tndh.net> wrote:
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Vincent Hoffman [mailto:jhary at unsane.co.uk]
> >> Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2011 9:44 AM
> >> To: nanog at nanog.org
> >> Subject: Re: ipv4's last graph
> >>
> >> On 02/02/2011 17:22, Matthew Petach wrote:
> >> > On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 9:01 AM, Tony Hain <alh-ietf at tndh.net>
> wrote:
> >> >> So in the interest of 'second opinions never hurt', and I just
> can't
> >> get my
> >> >> head around "APnic sitting at 3 /8's, burning 2.3 /8's in the
> last 2
> >> months
> >> >> and the idea of a 50% probability that their exhaustion event
> occurs
> >> Aug.
> >> >> 2011", here are a couple other graphs to consider.
> >> >> http://www.tndh.net/~tony/ietf/IPv4-rir-pools.pdf
> >> >> http://www.tndh.net/~tony/ietf/IPv4-rir-pools-zoom.pdf
> >> >>
> >> >> Tony
> >> > Two things:
> >> >
> >> > 1) you'll get better uptake of your graph if it's visible as a
> simple
> >> > ? ? ?image, rather than requiring a PDF download. ?:/
> >> Not wishing to advertise google but
> >>
> >>
> http://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://www.tndh.net/~tony/ietf/IPv4-
> >> rir-pools.pdf
> >> and
> >>
> http://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://www.tndh.net/~tony/ietf/IPv4-
> >> rir-pools-zoom.pdf
> >>
> >>
> >> works for me without needing to download a pdf viewer
> >
> > For some reason that viewer didn't work here, so I added jpg's to the
> site.
> > http://www.tndh.net/~tony/ietf/IPv4-rir-pools.jpg
> > http://www.tndh.net/~tony/ietf/IPv4-rir-pools-zoom.jpg
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Vince
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > 2) labelling the Y axis would help; I'm not sure what the scale
> >> > of 1-8 represents, unless it's perhaps the number of slices of
> >> > pizza consumed per staff member per address allocation request?
> >
> > I thought about leaving it off completely, but figured I would be
> asked for
> > scale. It is /8's remaining until they drop into their 'last
> allocation'
> > policy. I will see if I can figure out how to fit that into something
> > readable.
> >
> >
> >> >
> >> > But I do agree with what seems to be your driving message, which
> >> > is that Geoff could potentially be considered "optimistic". ?^_^;
> >
> > Geoff has always been the optimist ... ?;0
> >
> >
> >> >
> >> > Matt
> >
> >
> >
> >