IPV4 as a Commodity for Profit

Owen DeLong wrote:

Barring a prior agreement, what grounds does any third party have to object?

The argument could be made that some form of prior agreement exists that the
legacy holders have already received that assignment under those terms and that the
RIRs have accepted a burden to preserve that.

Well I suppose that would be an interesting question that would depend on examining a whole bunch of agreements that may or may not exist and that may or may not have any legal ramification in some jurisidiction or another and that may or may not apply to successors in interest who may or may not actually be successors in interest.

Legally speaking, if the registries voluntaried disbanded, thus requiring a new unencumbered entity to rise from the ashes, how could any prior agreement be considered binding?

You'd probably need to disband the following entities without successor arrangements
in order to accomplish this:
  1. The RIRs
  2. IANA/ICANN
  3. USDoC

The third is extremely unlikely.
The second is unlikely.
The first is very unlikely.

At a certain point, the courts will apply the reasonable and prudent test to the question and likely determine
that someone who received an assignment from SRI-NIC or NSI-NIC had a reasonable expectation to be
able to use that address space in perpetuity and that whatever registry had reasonable duty not to duplicate
said assignment. Very likely any ISP routing the assignment to the new holder would be part of the lawsuit
and would get enjoined from doing so.

Thus, your "Barring a prior agreement" condition is not met.

For that matter, aside from consensus and inertia, what would stop the operator community as a whole from setting up shop with a "forked" registry that had no contractual agreements with anybody prior?

Nothing. However, do you really think that is viable?
   1. Consensus would be very hard to achieve.

If the current registries are not fulfilling the needs and have become irrelevant, consensus for forking becomes more likely.

I think it is unlikely that the current registries will become less relevant that alternative registries.

The only technical lockin I can spot is reverse dns.

That's substantial, but, having multiple registries competing to assign the same addresses in
an uncoordinated manner is not likely to be a useful or successful model in any case.

   2. Identifying a single entity to manage such a "forked" registry vs. a bunch
       of islands of registration would be even harder.

All such islands would have a vested interest to work together, and thus, they might actually do so, just like all internet network islands do so today.

How do you see this working? Who would determine which addresses went to which islands for
assignment/allocation?

   3. Much breakage and instability would likely result.

Likely not, since any registry wishing to be successfull would be trying their best not to break anything, in other words, RIR allocations would likely be honored/duplicated, but swamp would become fair game.

You still haven't explained who would have the authority to divide up the swamp between the
competing organizations, all of whom would likely claim full control of the entire swamp, but,
certainly there would be overlapping conflicts.

   4. Do you have any illusion that this would do anything other than beg
       government(s) to try and get involved in regulating address space?

If there is a breakdown in supply, than there will be an opportunity for an entity to step forward, if they can promise supply.

Promising supply is an act of fiction.

If iana free pool runs out and registries cant offer any new ones, whos to say goverments wont start stepping in and "eminent domain"ing address space and setting up registry shop themselves?

Could be interesting, indeed.

Consensus is still required. Otherwise its just a national private network, with or without nat.

Yep.

I think the takeaway is that the registries better remain relevant to ipv4 so long as ipv4 is relevant.

I agree that is the ideal outcome. The bigger question is how best to achieve this.

Owen

I'm sorry to have to say this, but that's all a load of crap.

People get their street addresses changed when there is a need. Phone numbers are changed when this is required to keep the numbering plan working. Why would people who by the policies that have been in effect for a decade don't qualify be able to keep using unreasonably large amounts of address space if this blocks others from connecting to the network?

ARIN/IANA/whatever should have had the stones to first put a large amount of pressure on the legacy class A holders and then take them to court. Declaring defeat before any action is taken is not a reasonable course of action.

Now it's too late, of course: the lawsuits would take years, renumbering too.

By the way, I sat down on the couch and turned on the NANOG channel to watch the IPv6 hour, but the video was fairly flakey. What was it that Randy found so cool?

ARIN/IANA/whatever should have had the stones to first put a large
amount of pressure on the legacy class A holders and then
take them to court. Declaring defeat before any action is taken
is not a reasonable course of action.

Not naming names, but I recall one member of an institution of
higher education stating at a meeting that from their (his?)
perspective, they would give up their class A only if they
calculated that the cost of defending against any potential
lawsuit (which they expected they would win) would exceed
the cost of renumbering (and they had done a back of the
envelope calculation that it was in the millions to renumber).
This is a clear profit and loss point of view. Why change
voluntarily if there is no profit to be made? We can all
talk about "the good of the community", but true altruism
is rare (although we all want to see it in others).

David Conrad wrote:

Joe,

When IANA free pool exhaustion happens or even appears to be imminent, one can expect push for allocation policies to be changed drastically towards the miserly.

No.

  ...

The RIR bureaucracy is a ponderous ship that turns very slowly and has multiple captains who do not necessarily agree on the direction to turn. IPv4 allocation policy revisions aren't going to save us.

A collaborative bottom-up consensus-based policy determination framework is a ponderous ship that turns ... [etc]. The problem is not necessarily in the machine room that implements these address allocation policies but in the process of determining policies that all interested parties can live with. It takes time. Probably more time than you have left.

So even if there are a flurry of last minute policy proposals to salvage the situation it may well be a case of too little too late.

The question is how ARIN will deal with the market after the IPv4 free pool exhausts.

I would suggest that the real question is "How will industry deal with the situation when the current supply streams for IPv4 vaporize?"

And the secondary question is "Will the industry's reaction to this shift in the supply of addresses destroy the integrity and utility of the entire IPv4 space?"

What I'm gettting at is that if there is no mechanism in whatever industry does for address supply after the unallocated pool exhausts to preserve the essential attribute of the address system, namely uniqueness of use, and we start to see competing claims to be able to use addresses without any agreed framework of resolution, then what happens to the Internet? Do we all just originate whatever addresses we feel like on the day in to the routing system?

Yep. And the question is: as an ISP or other address consuming organization, what will you do when the cost of obtaining IPv4 addresses skyrockets? So far, as far as I can tell, the answer to that question (in most cases) has been putting hands over ears and saying "La la la" loudly. See <http://www.networkworld.com/news/2008/020608-ipv4-address-depletion.html&gt;\.

indeed.

  Geoff

John,

I imagine that there are many potential outcomes. For example,
in a world where ICANN/IANA (who seems to very much want to
be in charge of all this)

This is almost amusing given the _mutually_ agreed role for ICANN/IANA in address allocation, but I guess we all need our bogeymen.

actually did IP block revocation of unused
blocks per RFC2050, we'd likely not be having any discussion of a
relaxed transfer policy, as a result of the complete lack of need.

To my knowledge, ICANN has neither the ability (given the mutual agreements between ICANN and the RIRs) nor the desire to intrude upon the RIR's bailiwick in this way. I find it somewhat surprising that after 10 or so years of trying to ensure ICANN didn't get into the RIRs business that you're suggesting they do so now (I seem to remember someone telling me "IANA should be a black box where the RIRs crank the handle and /8s pop out, nothing more").

However, this misses the point.

The people who control the Internet address space are not the RIRs or ICANN. Control is vested in the ISPs who decide what is routed or not routed. In effect, the ISPs have agreed to use the RIRs as a neutral meeting point to avoid negotiating a myriad agreements on who has the right to announce what. This only works as long as it is in the best interests of most (in particular, the big parties) to play along. As soon as policies begin to impact those best interests negatively, the policies will either be modified or ignored. If they are ignored, the vacuum will be filled by someone (whether a private entity or governments/ITU isn't clear at this point).

A market already exists. Whether it is done by buying/selling a company for its IP address assets or just simply buying the address space outright and paying an ISP to not look at a RIR whois server isn't particularly relevant. As the IPv4 free pool exhausts, that market is going to get much bigger, much faster. It would be nice if this market were somehow self-regulated by the industry players involved since failing that implies something I suspect none of us want. However, the current path appears to be to not do anything until it is too late.

Perhaps we could agree that not doing something until it is too late would be bad?

Would the ISP community support adherence to RFC 2050 and
route accordingly? It certainly has to date, and nearly every RIR

policy has been build accordingly.

And IPv4 address space has been essentially free to date. That _is_ changing as you well know.

It might result in some legal
work, but that's a small price to pay to further operational stability
of the Internet.

As far as I can tell, the best way to ensure instability is for ISPs and other address consuming organizations to continue ignoring the issue. Promoting the idea that 2050 is somehow still applicable to the post IPv4 free pool world would seem to support that action. Not sure how that helps.

p.s. ICANN seems to have no problem with asserting the
      informal DNS agreements from the same time period
      (with entire teams of lawyers) so maybe we just need
      to wait until they're free to pay attention to IP resources?

I'm afraid you're confused. The informal agreements I presume you're referring to are national sovereignty issues and ICANN has essentially no role (and certainly no role for ICANN's lawyers). FWIW, ICANN's lawyers are largely consumed in dealing with new, formal, contractual agreements. However, continue to make spurious accusations, it undoubtedly makes the various parties feel better.

Regards,
-drc

Only if you think "everybody hiding behind a NAT" is workable - in particular,
if you've got enough hosts that you're using up most of 2 /16s, you probably
have enough machines that might want an *inbound* SYN packet once in a while
that NAT isn't a really good idea. Maybe if you're a corporation where
98% of the machines really shouldn't be accessing the Internet at all *anyhow*,
but if you're someplace where "Yes, you can get to the Internet" is policy,
you shouldn't be getting into the "but we're not letting you to *all* of
the Internet, just the things NAT works with" food-fight.

David Conrad wrote:

Steve,

This is a strong argument for regulation of the market. A regulated
market could provide liquidity needed by those who would otherwise
find <unregulated> means to accomplish their ends (such as making
private deals that are perhaps undetectable).

I have no problem with regulating markets -- I tend to think they work
better that way.

Given the decentralized nature of the Internet and the lack of a single legal/policy regime that covers it, the challenge is in identifying viable candidates for the regulator.

That is a big challenge in this space, considering that there is no particular national alignment in the address structure.

The approach in the proposals so far is to attempt to create a framework around recognition of market-based outcomes that act as implicit constraints on the market. The proposals so far for recognition of address transfers in ARIN, RIPE and APNIC all attempt to define a class of transactions that would be regarded as eligible for entering in their respective address registries. That said, they each propose a different set of constraints!

    Geoff

Absolutely. Quite a few things are being done (hopefully
not too late) including looking into a more flexible transfer
policy and encouraging return of IP space which is no longer
needed.

You asked what "incentive to a holder of early allocations is
there to return address space voluntarily?"

The first answer ("it's the right thing to do") has clearly worked
in some cases). A second answer ("because it's required by
RFC 2050 if the addresses are not needed") is also available,
presuming that the community wish that to be the rule. As
you stated quite clearly, ultimately the control is vested in
the ISPs who decide what is routed or not routed.

/John

I would like to encourage everyone engaging in this discussion here to move the
discussion over to the ARIN PPML and talk about the policy.

It's great to talk about it on NANOG , and, indeed, many members of the ARIN AC
are on this list. However, the rest of the ARIN community should also see your
comments, and, that is technically the correct forum for addressing ARIN policy
matters.

Owen

David Conrad wrote:

John,

I imagine that there are many potential outcomes. For example,
in a world where ICANN/IANA (who seems to very much want to
be in charge of all this)

This is almost amusing given the _mutually_ agreed role for ICANN/IANA in address allocation, but I guess we all need our bogeymen.

actually did IP block revocation of unused
blocks per RFC2050, we'd likely not be having any discussion of a
relaxed transfer policy, as a result of the complete lack of need.

To my knowledge, ICANN has neither the ability (given the mutual agreements between ICANN and the RIRs) nor the desire to intrude upon the RIR's bailiwick in this way. I find it somewhat surprising that after 10 or so years of trying to ensure ICANN didn't get into the RIRs business that you're suggesting they do so now (I seem to remember someone telling me "IANA should be a black box where the RIRs crank the handle and /8s pop out, nothing more").

However, this misses the point.

The people who control the Internet address space are not the RIRs or ICANN. Control is vested in the ISPs who decide what is routed or not routed. In effect, the ISPs have agreed to use the RIRs as a neutral meeting point to avoid negotiating a myriad agreements on who has the right to announce what. This only works as long as it is in the best interests of most (in particular, the big parties) to play along. As soon as policies begin to impact those best interests negatively, the policies will either be modified or ignored. If they are ignored, the vacuum will be filled by someone (whether a private entity or governments/ITU isn't clear at this point).

A market already exists. Whether it is done by buying/selling a company for its IP address assets or just simply buying the address space outright and paying an ISP to not look at a RIR whois server isn't particularly relevant. As the IPv4 free pool exhausts, that market is going to get much bigger, much faster. It would be nice if this market were somehow self-regulated by the industry players involved since failing that implies something I suspect none of us want. However, the current path appears to be to not do anything until it is too late.

Perhaps we could agree that not doing something until it is too late would be bad?

Would the ISP community support adherence to RFC 2050 and
route accordingly? It certainly has to date, and nearly every RIR

policy has been build accordingly.

And IPv4 address space has been essentially free to date. That _is_ changing as you well know.

It might result in some legal
work, but that's a small price to pay to further operational stability
of the Internet.

As far as I can tell, the best way to ensure instability is for ISPs and other address consuming organizations to continue ignoring the issue. Promoting the idea that 2050 is somehow still applicable to the post IPv4 free pool world would seem to support that action. Not sure how that helps.

p.s. ICANN seems to have no problem with asserting the
      informal DNS agreements from the same time period
      (with entire teams of lawyers) so maybe we just need
      to wait until they're free to pay attention to IP resources?

I'm afraid you're confused. The informal agreements I presume you're referring to are national sovereignty issues and ICANN has essentially no role (and certainly no role for ICANN's lawyers). FWIW, ICANN's lawyers are largely consumed in dealing with new, formal, contractual agreements. However, continue to make spurious accusations, it undoubtedly makes the various parties feel better.

Regards,
-drc

Agree with David.

If it isn't the structural change proposal (scrap the original constituencies for contractual and non-contractual, with subdivisions within contractual for type of contract, and within non-contractual for type of non-contractual), then no one who cares about the balance of power within the GNSO will give it a moment's thought. If it isn't IDN (more personal caveats than most), then no one who cares about ICANN's next couple of years will give it a moment's thought.

So, no. As fun as the v4 pool looks to be, the g-side, the cc-side, and the more-bits-than-7-side have wicked bigger fish to fry.

Have fun,
Eric

Policy, Regulations, Community support and ,yes that word again, Market all
factored in there are some things that would be noteworthy to look at

1. Where is the current demand for IPv4 coming from? Plenty of analysis
here.
2. Can the new demand be steered towards IPv6 therefore slow down IPv4
depletion. For example in the developing world a lot of the demand is brand
new and therefore can it be satisfied with IPv6? Of course incentives are in
order though it's much easier than asking the behemoths to give up "their"
/16s etc.

Best Regards

Raymond Macharia

1. Where is the current demand for IPv4 coming from? Plenty of analysis
here.

Hm, let's see:

Thus spake "Adrian Chadd" <adrian@creative.net.au>

As I ranted on #nanog last night; the v6 transition will happen when it
costs more to buy / maintain a v4 infrastructure (IP trading, quadruple
NAT, support overheads, v6 tunnel brokers, etc) then it is to migrate
infrastructure to v6.

If people were sane (!), they'd have a method right now for an
enterprise to migrate 100% native IPv6 and interconnect to the v4
network via translation devices. None of this dual stack crap. It makes
the heads of IT security and technical managers spin.

I agree, to a point. My prediction is that when the handful of mega-ISPs are unable to get the massive quantities of IPv4 addresses they need (a few dozen account for 90% of all consumption in the ARIN region), they'll gradually start converting consumer POPs to 10/8 and reusing the freed blocks for new commercial customers. ISPs without consumer customers to cannibalize addresses from, e.g. hosting shops, will be the main folks needing to buy space on the market.

Unfortunately, it's just not possible today for most edge networks to go v6-only and get to the v4 Internet via NAT-PT. WinXP can't do DNS over v6, and earlier versions (which are still in widespread use) can't do v6 at all. The vast majority of home routers/modems can't do v6 either. They'll need NAT-PT eventually so all of those users stuck on v4 can get to new v6-only sites when they appear. Some may offer native v6 as well for people who don't like ISP NAT, but the main complainers will be the heavy P2P users they don't want in the first place, so where's the motivation?

Enterprises are a different story entirely; most are already on RFC1918 (or unadvertised class B space) behind their own NAT, and adding PT functionality to it is a simple software update that gives them access to external v6-only sites without touching any of their hosts. Once all their hosts can support it, perhaps in 5-10 years, they'll do a flash cut to v6 on the internal side and reconfigure their PT to reach external v4-only sites.

Dual-stack is necessary in the ISP core, definitely, but it's unrealistic at the edge. Most of us living out there went through the hell of running multiple L3 protocols in the 80s and 90s and have no desire to return to it; there's just no ROI for doing it that way vs a simple NAT-PT box.

(ObRant: Want v6 to take off? Just give everyone who has a v4
allocation a v6 allocation already. There's enough space to make
that happen.

I'm philosophically opposed to giving people something they haven't asked for. It's not like it's tough to get IPv6 space; ARIN's rejection rate is something like 2% once you remove the folks that applied for the wrong type.

Also, a response from the ARIN Pres/BoT on a similar topic was that it's not ARIN's job to push IPv6 on people, merely to educate them and serve any resulting requests. Giving an IPv6 block to everyone who has an IPv4 block definitely goes against that philosophy.

Oh wait, that reduces IRR revenues..)

Not at all; at least under the current fee schedule, revenues won't go down until total consumption of IPv4 space is well into a decline, which isn't going to happen for a long time. If that happens by 2020, I'll be pleasantly surprised.

S

Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking

(apologies in advance for extending this thread here rather than on ppml -- will gladly take responses off-list, or move it over if responders would prefer to continue the discussion there)

Thus spake "Adrian Chadd" <adrian@creative.net.au>

As I ranted on #nanog last night; the v6 transition will happen when it
costs more to buy / maintain a v4 infrastructure (IP trading, quadruple
NAT, support overheads, v6 tunnel brokers, etc) then it is to migrate
infrastructure to v6.

If people were sane (!), they'd have a method right now for an
enterprise to migrate 100% native IPv6 and interconnect to the v4
network via translation devices. None of this dual stack crap. It makes
the heads of IT security and technical managers spin.

I agree, to a point. My prediction is that when the handful of mega-ISPs are unable to get the massive quantities of IPv4 addresses they need (a few dozen account for 90% of all consumption in the ARIN region)...

I keep reading assertions like this. Is there any public, authoritative evidence to support this claim?
If there is, is this 90% figure a new development, or rather the product of changes in ownership (e.g., MCI-VZ-UU, SBC-ATT, etc.), changes in behavior (a run on the bank), some combination of the two, or something else altogether?

Thanks,

TV

In article <DE1FD436-A60A-4456-9031-C9F4F6D159E6@eyeconomics.com>, Tom Vest <tvest@eyeconomics.com> writes

My prediction is that when the handful of mega-ISPs are unable to get the massive quantities of IPv4 addresses they need (a few dozen account for 90% of all consumption in the ARIN region)...

I keep reading assertions like this. Is there any public, authoritative evidence to support this claim?
If there is, is this 90% figure a new development, or rather the product of changes in ownership (e.g., MCI-VZ-UU, SBC-ATT, etc.), changes in behavior (a run on the bank), some combination of the two, or something else altogether?

I would not be surprised to learn that "consumption in the ARIN region" includes all the legacy assignments. So the quoted metric may well be true, but as unhelpful as claiming that "MIT has more address space than the whole of China" (as some people do from time to time).

In the current context, just because they have received large allocations in the past, does not mean these few dozen ISPs will necessarily need similarly large new ipv4 allocations in future.

Operational comment: Look on the bright side, they may follow Comcast's example and deploy ipv6 instead!

dear arin hostfolk. could we please have the histogram for the last few years where the Y axis is the amount of allocation and the X axis is the number of organizations with that total size of new allocations during the period? you'll have to bucket alloc size in some useful way, probably a /16 or shorter or something.

thanks.

randy

Operational comment: Look on the bright side, they may follow
Comcast's example and deploy ipv6 instead!

Or they may not, and their share price will suffer as a
result. People making the technical decision to stick
with IPv4 for their large network are also making a
decision to limit the growth of the network and to
limit the growth of the business. As the IPv4
exhaustion issue becomes more widely understood,
companies who have not prepared themselves to
deploy IPv6 will find themselves under increasing
scrutiny by shareholders.

Comcast moved to IPv6 because their network was
running out of RFC 1918 space. Since DOCSIS 3 includes
IPv6 support, they made the decision to go to IPv6
rather than continue to spend money on shoehorning
themselves into the limited IPv4 address space.

Many people have not yet come to terms with how big
the IPv6 space is, even the /32 that an ISP gets or
the /48 that a site gets. We probably need to start
talking about the number of subnetting bits available.

For instance, an IPv4 ISP who assigns a /24 to subnets within
their architecture and who has a /16 allocated for their
architecture, has 8 bits available to subnet with.
If an IPv6 ISP decides to assign a /64 to subnets and
allocate a single /48 then they will also have
8 subnet bits available. So you could consider
a /48 to be roughly equivalent to an IPv4 /16.

Now, if an IPv6 ISP decides to strictly follow the
rule of assigning a /48 per site internally, then
each PoP or data center will be allocated a /48
meaning that each PoP or data center now has
8 subnet bits available.

This amount of legroom allows you to do things like
standardize subnet layouts for all sites, regardless
of size, including the actual bits used from the
8 subnet bits. For instance, you can predict that
if a PoP has 2001:1918:123/48 you know that if there
is a switch connecting to a data center at that site,
it will have the IPv6 address 2001:1918:123:d033::1
because your standard design has ::d033/64 assigned
to the switch filling that role and Interface ID 1
assigned to its management interface.

This kind of standardization makes it much easier to
deploy PoPs regardless of whether it is in Dubai,
where the data center is a half rack of webservers,
or The Dalles where it is a 40,000 square foot warehouse.
It also simplifies management and troubleshooting
of the network.

--Michael Dillon

I agree, to a point. My prediction is that when the handful of mega-ISPs are unable to get the massive quantities of IPv4 addresses they need (a few dozen account for 90% of all consumption in the ARIN region)...

I keep reading assertions like this. Is there any public, authoritative evidence to support this claim?

You can download files with all the delegation info from ftp.arin.net.

If there is, is this 90% figure a new development, or rather the product of changes in ownership (e.g., MCI-VZ-UU, SBC-ATT, etc.), changes in behavior (a run on the bank), some combination of the two, or something else altogether?

No, simply because large ISPs need lots of addresses, everyone else can make do with just a few.

I would not be surprised to learn that "consumption in the ARIN region" includes all the legacy assignments.

By definition, no new legacy assignments are given out. :slight_smile:

So simply looking at recent data will correct for this.

So the quoted metric may well be true, but as unhelpful as claiming that "MIT has more address space than the whole of China" (as some people do from time to time).

Which is complete nonsense. MIT has 18/8, which is a little under 17 million addresses. I'm assuming that whatever else on top of that they have doesn't amount to a significant number. China is eating up IPv4 address space like it's going out of style (hm...) and they're now the third largest holder with 140 million IPv4 addresses, a hair shy of Japan's 142 million and 1/10th of the US's 1411 million.

> So the quoted metric may well be true, but as unhelpful as claiming
> that "MIT has more address space than the whole of China" (as some
> people do from time to time).

Which is complete nonsense. MIT has 18/8, which is a little
under 17 million addresses. I'm assuming that whatever else
on top of that they have doesn't amount to a significant
number. China is eating up IPv4 address space like it's going
out of style (hm...) and they're now the third largest holder
with 140 million IPv4 addresses, a hair shy of Japan's 142
million and 1/10th of the US's 1411 million.

Total delegations: 1624, millions of addresses: 48.55.

If one were to sum this up briefly, would it be correct to
answer the MIT myth by saying:

   MIT has only 17 million addresses but China has 140 million.
   Along with Japan at 142 million, these are the top two holders
   of IP addresses with the USA trailing at 48.5 million. Due to
   legacy allocations which are often used wastefully due to legacy
   technology, the USA is often quoted as having 1,411 million IP
   addresses but this does not reflect the current rules under which
   IP address registries operate. In addition, since we are likely
   to use up all possible IPv4 addresses by 2011, smart organizations
   are moving to IPv6 where there is no shortage forecast for 100
   years or more.

Personally, I would like to see the NRO take a crack at issuing some
kind of statement like this, to make it clear where the IP addresses
are used, why organizations like MIT are not villains, and why the
only way out of the steadily tightening straitjacket is to shift new
network growth onto IPv6 and get to work on sorting out all the
minor technical issues that will only get sorted out by actually
pushing ahead with deployment, and use of IPv6.

Back in the early days of the Internet, it was easier because there was
a smaller community of vendors, network operators and protocol
developers.
Also, people didn't fully understand the implications of deploying the
Internet as a replacement for all other networks in existence, therefore
they forged ahead blissfully unaware that they were about to stumble
head
on into a technical problem. The result, is that there was constant
movement,
constant bug fixing, and all the minor technical issues faded into
distant
memories.

All we have to do to make IPv6 ready for primetime is to deploy it for
real,
find the issues, fix the issues and move on. There is a real opportunity
here
for smaller companies who know how to run a lean mean operation, to
deploy
IPv6 Internet services at half the price of the large companies, and
come
out on top in three years or so when the large companies buy them out
for
big sums of money. The price incentive will ensure a steady stream of
customers
who are willing to take the chance with a less-than-perfect best-effort
service.

--Michael Dillon

--Michael Dillon

If one were to sum this up briefly, would it be correct to
answer the MIT myth by saying:

  MIT has only 17 million addresses but China has 140 million.
  Along with Japan at 142 million, these are the top two holders
  of IP addresses with the USA trailing at 48.5 million.

Huh? Where do you get 48.5 million?

Due to
  legacy allocations which are often used wastefully due to legacy
  technology, the USA is often quoted as having 1,411 million IP
  addresses but this does not reflect the current rules under which
  IP address registries operate.

It's possible to identify the legacy /8s (especially now they're called exactly that in the new IANA file) but this is not as easy for the legacy class B space, which is about the same amount of address space. Alternatively, you can simply ignore everything before a certain cutoff date. As of 1994, the RIR system was gaining steam. If we add up all the space given out since 19940101 until now (ignoring what has been returned in the intermediate):

United States US 500.595 million
China CN 139.853 million
Japan JP 101.713 million
United Kingdom GB 65.524 million
Germany DE 58.945 million

However, there were still a few legacy /8 given out as late as 1998. So looking at everything delegated since 1999:

United States US 278.055 million
China CN 134.824 million
Japan JP 89.883 million
Germany DE 53.072 million
South Korea KR 51.153 million

So the US has AT LEAST 278 million non-legacy addresses allocated/assigned. Also, some of the legacy blocks, such as 4/8 and 12/8 are de facto used by ISPs to address customers. Whichever way you slice it, the US is the largest holder of address space by a factor of more than 2, and, until 2007, the largest user of new address space.

(See http://www.bgpexpert.com/addressespercountry.php and BGPexpert.com - IPv4 address usage statistics )

In addition, since we are likely
  to use up all possible IPv4 addresses by 2011,

No, that's when the depletion of the IANA pool is predicted. The RIRs also hold 400 million addresses for their day-to-day operations, which will take at least another year, maybe two, to deplete.