Date post: | 17-Jan-2016 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | bertram-ford |
View: | 214 times |
Download: | 0 times |
www.genuity.com
IPv4 Address Allocation Trends
J. Scott MarcusChief Technology Officer (CTO)
May 22, 2001
www.genuity.com
IPv4 Address Allocation Trends
• AS number exhaustion - the RIRs recognize the need for forecasting
• IPv4 allocation and usage trends• The McFadden/Holmes Report
www.genuity.com
Exponential Growth of Autonomous System (AS) numbers
R2 = 0.9957
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
70000
80000
10/0
1/1
996
10/0
1/1
997
10/0
1/1
998
10/0
1/1
999
10/0
1/2
000
10/0
1/2
001
10/0
1/2
002
10/0
1/2
003
10/0
1/2
004
10/0
1/2
005
AS
Num
bers
(A
SN
s)
ASNs to Oct2000
ASNs since Oct2000
Expon. (ASNs to Oct2000)
Source: Scott Marcus, Genuity
www.genuity.com
Exponential vs Quadratic (Bates Data)
y = 6E-14e0.0011x
R2 = 0.9957
y = 0.002x2 - 138.37x + 2E+06
R2 = 0.9962
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
10/0
1/19
96
01/0
1/19
97
04/0
1/19
97
07/0
1/19
97
10/0
1/19
97
01/0
1/19
98
04/0
1/19
98
07/0
1/19
98
10/0
1/19
98
01/0
1/19
99
04/0
1/19
99
07/0
1/19
99
10/0
1/19
99
01/0
1/20
00
04/0
1/20
00
07/0
1/20
00
10/0
1/20
00
01/0
1/20
01
04/0
1/20
01
07/0
1/20
01
10/0
1/20
01
01/0
1/20
02
04/0
1/20
02
07/0
1/20
02
10/0
1/20
02
01/0
1/20
03
Act
ive
AS
es (
Cle
an)
ASNs to Oct2000
ASNs since Oct2000
Expon. (ASNs to Oct2000)
Poly. (ASNs to Oct2000)
www.genuity.com
Chicken Little was Wrong!
• This is far simpler to remedy than IPv4 address exhaustion, because– the solution need not impact end systems (hosts);
– the solution need not impact DNS; and
– the solution need not impact routers unless they speak BGP-4.
• Any solution is complicated by the need for backward compatibility and phased migration.
• Time until exhaustion is nonetheless sufficient to architect, design, implement and deploy solutions.
• Cisco and Juniper are reportedly well into implementation.
www.genuity.com
BGP Table Growth since 1989
Route Table Bloat - a Different Problem
www.genuity.com
The RIRs Recognize the Need for Forecasting
• Continuing need to further refine projections.• Need for forward-looking proactive forecasting on a
regular basis not only for AS numbers, but also for route table entries and IPv4/IPv6 addresses.
• Forecasting needs to incorporate allocation data from all three RIRs (APNIC, ARIN, RIPE NCC).
• Forecasting needs to be institutionalized by the RIRs themselves, with data readily available to independent researchers.
www.genuity.com
The Team
• Assembled by ARIN– Frank Solensky Gotham Networks– kc claffy CAIDA– Scott Marcus Genuity
• Active contributions and support by APNIC and RIPE NCC
www.genuity.com
Goals (and Non-Goals) for RIR Team
• Formally and regularly:– Gather address deployment data from RIRs– Perform statistical analysis– Make allocation data available for independent analysis
• Non-goals:– ‘Blue sky’ theorizing– Estimating NAT utilization (for now)
www.genuity.com
Annual IPv4 Address Allocation
100
200
300
400
500
600
1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
IPv4
Ad
dre
ss
es
(m
illio
ns
)
RIPE
ARIN
APNIC
Annual IPv4 Allocations
www.genuity.com
Cumulative IPv4 Addresses Allocated
.
.5
1.
1.5
2.
2.5
1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
IPv4
Add
ress
es (b
illio
ns)
RIPE
ARIN
APNIC
Cumulative IPv4 Allocations
www.genuity.com
y = 6E+06x - 5E+09
R2 = 0.9329
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
1991
1996
2001
2006
2011
2016
2021
2026
IPv4 Address Allocations: Linear Fit
www.genuity.com
Address Allocations: Logistic Fit
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
1991
1996
2001
2006
2011
2016
2021
2026
y= _____1.938 E + 9____1+Exp(-0.33x - 0.226)
www.genuity.com
A Closer Look - Logistic Curve
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
2.0
Jun-
91
Dec-91
Jun-
92
Dec-92
Jun-
93
Dec-93
Jun-
94
Dec-94
Jun-
95
Dec-95
Jun-
96
Dec-96
Jun-
97
Dec-97
Jun-
98
Dec-98
Jun-
99
Dec-99
Jun-
00
Dec-00
Jun-
01
www.genuity.com
Addresses Seen by Telstra (AS1221)
1
1.02
1.04
1.06
1.08
1.1
1.12
1.14
Nov-99
Dec-99
Jan-0
0
Feb-0
0
Mar -
00
Apr -00
May-00
Jun-0
0
Jul-0
0
Aug-00
Sep-00
Oct-0
0
Nov-00
Dec-00
Jan-0
1
Feb-0
1
Billi
ons
Raw Data
Adjusted
www.genuity.com
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
Nov-99
Dec-99
Jan-0
0
Feb-0
0
Mar
-00
Apr-00
May
-00
Jun-0
0
Jul-0
0
Aug-00
Sep-00
Oct-0
0
Nov-00
Dec-00
Jan-0
1
Feb-0
1
Mar
-01
Ad
dre
ss
es
(M
illio
ns
)
Allocated
AS 1221, adjusted
Named Addresses
Addresses in Use
www.genuity.com
y = 0.1626x - 140.06
R2 = 0.9688
54
54.5
55
55.5
56
56.5
57
57.5
58
% o
f A
lloc
ate
d A
dd
res
se
sRouting Table Address Growth
www.genuity.com
McFadden/Holmes/Mylotte ProjectionPurported Worst Case, Most Likely and Best Cases
www.genuity.com
Rate of Depletion• Annual growth rate
– McFadden/Holmes assumes low/medium/high growth of 30%/50%/80% respectively.
– RIR data shows annual growth of about 3%, with a negative second derivative
– Geoff Huston’s data shows annual growth of roughly 7%
• Order of magnitude discrepancy!• The trend does NOT appear to be exponential overall.
www.genuity.com
Marketing Analysis
• Numerous statistics, no attribution• No traceability of assumptions• No verifiability of source data
www.genuity.com
Lessons
• The RIR team will continue to focus on conservative analysis and extrapolation of verifiable quantitative data.
• Debate is a healthy thing - “Let a thousand flowers bloom.”
• We will make RIR source data available to independent researchers.
• Policymakers in the RIRs, ASO, IETF and elsewhere should benefit from diverse inputs and should reach their own conclusions.
www.genuity.com
Acknowledgments
• Frank Solensky, Gotham Networks• kc claffy, CAIDA• Geoff Huston, Telstra• Cathy Murphy, ARIN• Paul Wilson, APNIC• Axel Pawlik and Mirjam Kuehne, RIPE NCC• Tony Bates and Phillip Smith, Cisco• Mark Kosters, Verisign• Christian Huitema, Microsoft