[162605] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: "It's the end of the world as we know it" -- REM
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Chris Grundemann)
Fri Apr 26 10:23:54 2013
In-Reply-To: <23500EB3-79B5-4992-9E50-6A19FCB3A472@apnic.net>
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 10:23:41 -0400
From: Chris Grundemann <cgrundemann@gmail.com>
To: Geoff Huston <gih@apnic.net>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 3:12 AM, Geoff Huston <gih@apnic.net> wrote:
>
> On 26/04/2013, at 4:27 PM, joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> I also find it a bit strange that the runout in APNIC and RIPE was very=
different. APNIC address allocation rate accelerated at the end, whereas R=
IPE exhaustion date kept creeping forward in time instead of closer in time=
, giving me the impression that there wasn't any panic there.
>>>
>> apnic allocation reserved the final /8 for /22 maximal allocations. Cou=
ple that with some qualifying very large assignments towards the end of sta=
ge two e.g between feb 1 and april 14 2011 7 provider assignments combined =
soaked up more than 2 /8s and you get rapid runout towards the endgame.
>>
>
>
> APNIC used a 12 month allocation window right up to the point of exhausti=
on, while RIPE was operating on a 3 month window, as is ARIN. That may be a=
contributing factor in explaining the differences in behaviour in the fina=
l months / weeks.
>
> But its not just that.
>
> Other factors include large developing countries with massive DSL deploym=
ents underway (China, India) mean that in the APNIC region we were not look=
ing at a wired infrastructure market sector that was already saturated. Qui=
te the opposite. Similarly the wireless market in Asia was / is expanding r=
apidly for much the same reason (wireless is cheaper to deploy than wired i=
f you have absolutely no pre-installed wireless infrastructure). i.e. the u=
nmet demand overhang as compared to the available address pools was massive=
in Asia. Now that does not imply that Europe and the Middle East has no de=
mand overhang, but perhaps not on the same scale as was experienced by APNI=
C in early 2011.
>
> Also in September last year the European financial situation was still im=
pacting on the problems of the service industry (and still is in many count=
ries). So the underlying capital-driven demand factors were different betwe=
en Europe and Asia. Perhaps it was more challenging for European entities t=
o demonstrate an expansion of their Internet service infrastructure over ro=
lling 3 months windows due to a slow down in consumer demand in parts of Eu=
rope.
>
> What factors will play out in the North American market? It might be inte=
resting to look at address allocations by country by year. One such table o=
f the top 10 countries in terms of IPv4 allocations since 2007 is at http:/=
/www.potaroo.net/ispcol/2013-01/2012.html, table 3.The peak US year was 200=
7 with 48M addresses. in 2011 ARIN introduced the 3 month allocation window=
, and allocating that year halved from the previous year. Last year they we=
re a little higher at 28M addresses. What drove last year's numbers in ARIN=
was a total of 16M addresses allocated to Canadian entities. So to what ex=
tent is this a saturated market already in terms of the deployment of servi=
ce infrastructure? To what extent are new devices simply replacing old, and=
to what extent are the dynamics of the market in that region driven by pro=
vider churn as distinct from greenfields expansion? Obviously the answers t=
o such questions have a strong impact on the underlying model of overall de=
mand for more addresses in the region.
One interesting twist in all of this is that several of these new
"slow-start" players in the ARIN region seem to be servicing customers
outside of the region with equipment and services hosted here inside
the ARIN region (see slide 12 on the ARIN 31 "Policy Implementation
and Experience Report"
https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_31/PDF/monday/nobile=
_policy.pdf).
This fact may negate the market saturation affect completely.
Cheers,
~Chris
> And of course one of the hardest factors of all: Panic is extremely diffi=
cult to model. Most forms of predictive modelling reach back in time and th=
en use that date to push forward. but panic is of course different. It does=
not drive off past behaviour but feeds off itself. The APNIC runout was ex=
ceptionally hard to model at the time because the incidence of large alloca=
tions rose very quickly in March. Yes, I'd ascribe that to panic. That reac=
tion was not so evident in RIPE in August / September last year. So it appe=
ars that panic, or the level of panic, is not a constant factor. Different =
regions at different times appear to elicit different responses to impendin=
g exhaustion.
>
>
> Geoff
>
--
@ChrisGrundemann
http://chrisgrundemann.com
