> With the limited amount of data available (since this effect only started > over the last year or so), you can fit about every curve you like into > it - exponential, linear, quadratic. None will be a very reasonable > projection.
So we can't say exactly "there are progressive IPv4 exhaustion" and we have nothing to worry about right now. Yes? 09.06.2015, 18:58, "Gert Doering" <[email protected]>: > Hi, > > On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 06:51:01PM +0300, Vladimir Andreev wrote: >> > The reason for this policy is to make sure that the community keeps to >> > the *intent* of the "last /8" policy: ensure that newcomers in the market >> > will have a bit of IPv4 space available to number their translation gear >> > to and from IPv6. It will not completely achieve that, of course, but >> > make the obvious loophole less attractive. >> >> Earlier I already said that fast-trade takes away only 3% of last /8. >> >> Today Ciprian Nica showed that there is NO exponential grow of transfers >> from last /8 and also calculated that transferred IP's from last /8 >> represent only 1.83% of all transferred IP's. >> >> So what is this proposal about? > > The growth in trade is VERY clearly visible. > > With the limited amount of data available (since this effect only started > over the last year or so), you can fit about every curve you like into > it - exponential, linear, quadratic. None will be a very reasonable > projection. > > But it's actually good that only 3% of the last /8 has been fast-traded > away: let's keep it that way. > > Gert Doering > -- APWG chair > -- > have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? > > SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard > Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann > D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) > Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 -- With best regards, Vladimir Andreev General director, QuickSoft LLC Tel: +7 903 1750503
