Subject: Re: (!) Vint Cerf designing network for solar system (!)

From: [email-masked] (Michael P DiGioia)
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1999 12:40:50 -0500

Bob,

This is what happens when you are branded king of the network!

He is associated with having super powers and needs to focus his attention
on networking to mars before we have a crisis out there.

As you indicate, my only concern is that we could sure use his creative
energy here on earth with all the current problems.

/mpd

---

From: Sascha Ignjatovic <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1999 19:17:49 +0100 (MET)

hey you both 

you must be envy and wanabe internet expert to tell dr.cerf what to do..

dr.cerf is one of the most astounishing persons with the greatest internet
knowledge and working capabilitys

dr.cerf is working very well on allmost all aspects of the internet on
earth and he is also again pioniring the developments wich will be very
importend for the future of the internet on earth..

and what are you both xxx doing the wholle day..? 

sascha

---

From: Sascha Ignjatovic <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1999 19:17:49 +0100 (MET)

hey you both 

sascha

---

From: Carl Malamud <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1999 13:44:44 -0500 (EST)

> energy here on earth with all the current problems.

Extending the Internet into space struck me as a truly
stupid idea when I first heard about it.  After all, this
is a network of networks, and there are not currently a
huge number of users on Mars (with the obvious exception
of a couple of frequent posters to some mailing lists).

However, after thinking about this for a while, I've come
around to thinking it is a useful research effort, certainly
much more useful than Internet Creator Al Gore's idea of
putting a video camera on the earth and hooking it up to
the mbone.

Vint points out that there are some fundamental protocol
issues (e.g., roundtrip packet times that go from several
seconds to minutes).  When you think about using your
laptop on a cellphone network and having to call a
half-dozen times to reestablish a data link, its pretty
obvious that Vint's space research on long timeouts is 
really just another way to do research on mobility 
issues.

More important, the space program (and the satellite 
industry) have a variety of data link issues to work out,
and if they want to work those out under the PR umbrella
of "extend the Internet into space," more power to them.

There's nothing wrong with using a metaphor to get people
working together on a common set of goals.  Intergalatic
Internets may be just a PR wrapper, but at least it has
more coherence than Internet 2, Digital Libraries, or
the ATM Global Interoperability Testbed.  Give Vint a
break ... at least he's trying.

Carl

---

From: Carl Malamud <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1999 13:44:44 -0500 (EST)

Carl

---

From: Randall Gale <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1999 15:11:25 -0500

While the prospect of designing a "network" for the purpose of
interplanetary packet transport is of arguable relevance/realism, and at
the risk of sounding like a Gore basher, it seems a bit disconcerting to be
comparing Dr. Cerf and Mr. Gore.

Not intending to take away from the work either gentleman has done is their
respective capacities, I can't believe I'm even reading such a thing.

With any semblance of a straight face, would we look to politicians for the
majority of the brainstorms leading to research efforts anyway?  In a
perfect world, for some initial requirements definition MAYBE. 

Or for that matter, would we want Dr. Cerf meeting with Prime Ministers?
(OK.. that seems less horrible for some reason)

I guess the point (as invisible as it may be in my mail) is that the
charter of both of these men, with respect to their backgrounds and obvious
experience with the network(s) really are apples and oranges.  If not, one
of them (or both of them) would be way off base.

With that said, I don't like the idea of either men being treated
disrespectfully.
Regardless of how much I may not agree with some of their idealogies.

At 01:44 PM 3/11/99 -0500, Carl Malamud <[email-masked]> wrote:
...
>putting a video camera on the earth and hooking it up to
...
=========================================================
Randall Gale
Systems Engineer
xDSL Operations
GTE Internetworking powered by BBN
3 Van De Graff Drive
PO Box 3073
Burlington MA 01803
VOX:  +1 781.262.6545
FAX:  +1 781.262.8166
mailto:[email-masked]
---------------------------------------------------------
"When the doors of perception are cleansed,
things will appear to man as they truly are; infinite..."
                                          - William Blake
"He who makes a beast of himself,
gets rid of the pain of being a man..."
                                     - Dr. Samuel Johnson
=========================================================

---

From: Randall Gale <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1999 15:11:25 -0500

...

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1999 14:57:27 -0800

>issues (e.g., roundtrip packet times that go from several

When the original Internet crew decided on 32 bits for address space -- as 
I recall, the final decision was Vint's -- they were multiplying the number 
of bits by four, over that used in the Arpanet.  This was a highly 
controversial decision, because it was considered by many to be 
ridiculously wasteful.  20 years later we find that it is not enough and we 
have to quadruple the number of bits again.

Thinking about honest-to-goodness l-o-n-g term requirements is 
difficult.  Who would have thought that the Internet technology would still 
be in use and need to deal with so much variation in scale and performance?

As Carl cites, there are serious technical issues that the interplanetary 
metaphor poses.  Solutions to those problems have real and immediate 
application, for example for the crew of a marine research vessel whose 
only link to the Internet is an outrageously expensive satellite channel, 
or folks in developing countries who have, perhaps, a noisy 9.6kbps line 
into the entire country.  The better we learn to deal with limited 
bandwidth, severe signal distortion and large latency, the better the 
overall performance of the net and the satisfaction of users will 
be.  Folks are already realizing that the long-haul Internet really does 
not perform well for true client/server exchanges.  We need to fix that.

The metaphor therefore crystallizes important technical issues nicely, 
while having good PR value.  That's pretty efficient, as metaphors go.

d/

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dave Crocker                                         Tel: +1 408 246 8253
Brandenburg Consulting                               Fax: +1 408 273 6464
675 Spruce Drive                             <http://www.brandenburg.com>
Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA                 <mailto:[email-masked]>

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1999 14:57:27 -0800

d/

---

From: Bob Allisat <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1999 18:15:52 -0500 (EST)

Sascha Ignjatovic wrote:
> dr.cerf is one of the most astounishing persons with the greatest
> internet knowledge and working capabilitys

 Yes, yes Sascha. Vint is playing rocket
 science while down here on planet Earth
 all heck breaks loose. Great guy. All
 he has to do is grow a beard, hire on a
 few pro bono lawyers who will pressure
 him until he croaks of the stress and
 he can be a real live immortal! What a
 bunch these great scientists of the Net
 be, Martha! Hero worshipping fools.

 Bob Allisat

 Free Community Network _ [email-masked]
 http://fcn.net _ http://fcn.net/allisat
 http://robin.fcn.net

---

From: Bob Allisat <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1999 18:15:52 -0500 (EST)

Bob Allisat

---

From: Sascha Ignjatovic <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1999 00:51:49 +0100 (MET)

On Thu, 11 Mar 1999, Bob Allisat wrote:

>  all heck breaks loose. Great guy. 

bob  dr.cerf is geting a proccess going wich will help developing a
concept and establishing a 

Internet and Society Task Force 

wich will take care on allmost all aspects of the 
Internet and general Society ...

the same thing you are demanding for some time

so dont panic we have the earth under control.. :-)

sascha

---

From: Sascha Ignjatovic <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1999 00:51:49 +0100 (MET)

sascha

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1999 00:18:12 -0500 (EST)

"don't panic we have the earth under control.. :-)"

		That's what i think we're all afraid of down here

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1999 00:18:12 -0500 (EST)

---

From: Tony Li <[email-masked]>
Date: 12 Mar 1999 01:09:43 -0800

> have to quadruple the number of bits again.

And then there are those of us that think that only quadrupling is being
shortsighted and guaranteeing that our children fix it again in another 20
years.

;-)

Tony

---

From: Tony Li <[email-masked]>
Date: 12 Mar 1999 01:09:43 -0800

;-)

Tony

---

From: "vinton g. cerf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1999 07:18:58 -0500

>comparing Dr. Cerf and Mr. Gore.

As to the utility - it is proving to be of value to the NASA
missions to Mars by creating uniformity that allows each mission
to support future ones, unlike past situations in which each
mission was entirely separate and not interoperable.

>perfect world, for some initial requirements definition MAYBE. 

It has been stunningly refreshing to find that such a senior
person in the adminstration as VP Gore has a passion for technology
and a useful working understanding of it - it colors his thinking
about legislation and policy and, for the most part, I think that
has been extraordinarily beneficial to the research community and
to high tech industries. While I don't agree with everything the
administration does or every policy it espouses, it is very satisfying
to have discussions of substance in which the technology aspect is
not shoved under the rug as "details"

>(OK.. that seems less horrible for some reason)

Uh, I do on occasion meet with Prime Ministers and Presidents but
the conversation is usually confined to Internet and its impact,
research in general, economic impact of research, technology transfer...
and, increasingly, the social and economic effects of Internet.

Vint

>Regardless of how much I may not agree with some of their idealogies.

=================================================================

See you at INET'99, San Jose, CA, June 22-25,1999 
http://www.isoc.org/inet99/

---

From: "vinton g. cerf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1999 07:18:58 -0500

Vint

---

From: Frank Solensky <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1999 17:51:51 +0000

> (OK.. that seems less horrible for some reason)

Well, he did meet up with the Talons..

---

From: Frank Solensky <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1999 17:51:51 +0000

---

From: [email-masked] (Uber, Chet)
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1999 11:41:33 -0600

Tony,

Ummm, I'm not sure you actually grasp what you just are stating below. You seem
to be equating

8 X 4 = 32        equals 20 years
32 x 4 = 128     equals 20 years

When really it should be that 7 orders of magnitude support 20 years of growth,
and an additional 32 orders of magnitude equal 20 years of growth; as supported
below.

2^8 =          2.56E+02
2^32 =        4.29E+09 (rounded) = 20 years
2^128 =      3.40E+38 (rounded) = 20 years

1. I find it hard to reconcile even the most abitious utilization growth curves
with your worry. Just to make it clearer; we moved from:

256 addresses
4,290,000,000 (rounded) addresses
340,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (rounded) addresses

Can you please show me how you conceivably indicate that both these changes
equate to a twenty year address space life?? I would like to see your
calculations, before I concede that the quadrupling is insufficient.

BTW: It is easy to take pot shots at the big boys, just make sure that you are
playing in their league. Otherwise support your blurbs with engineering or other
technical data. Further, who says 20 years is not a long life for a solution. I
would rather implement a 128 bit solution today, that with all the
incompatibility issues works; then wait another 6 years while we get IPv8
working.

Chet Uber
Chief Technology Officer
World Media Company (NOT THE PRESS)
1334 Dodge Street, Omaha, NE 68102
402-444-1158 vox
402-346-7158 fax
http://www.omaha.com
[email-masked]

---

From: [email-masked] (Uber, Chet)
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1999 11:41:33 -0600

Tony,

2^8 =          2.56E+02

256 addresses

Chet Uber
Chief Technology Officer

---

From: Robert Elz <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 13 Mar 1999 07:08:56 +1100

Chet, you're basically right, but you go a little far.

There's one obvious wrong assumption in Tony's argument, which is that
a 32 bit address space has been used up in 20 years.   It hasn't - nothing
like it.   What it has been has been wasted (because no-one could imagine
even 10 years ago just what the growth would be like).

All that is needed is to look at the address space consumed by the huge
growth in the past few years - it has (essentially) all occurred in the
address space that used to be the class C nets (which occupy just 1/8 of
the IPv4 total address space) and that still had quite a bit of available
space in it last time I looked.   Of course this has partly been achieved
by somewhat draconian allocation policies, not always allocating the number
of addresses that people would really like to have (and which is not
absurdly inflated over real needs) and hence forcing abominations like NAT
into the world.

If it were possible, we could survive for a long time into the future by
simply reclaiming all the existing allocated IPv4 addresses, and starting
again with a rational address allocation policy.   But that simply isn't
going to happen, the logistics would be a nightmare.   It is far easier to
give out something new, and apply new policies to that, than to attempt to
undo history.   Then we get the side benefits of being able to do some
cleanups of the general protocol architectures, and get everyone to stacks
that are more supportive of better allocation policies (eg: where the whole
stack knows that addresses are liable to change from time to time, they're
not allocated once, forever, as has been assumed in the past).

Now Tony is certainly no fool, and nor are many of the others who believe
that it would have been wiser to adopt a variable length address strategy
rather than a fixed length one.   On the other hand, nor are those who
designed the fixed length scheme.   This is one of those tradeoffs that has
arguments on both sides, it just happened that overall the IETF decided that
the fixed length scheme was the way we should go.   Not everyone is happy with
that decision, but that's not an unusual state of affairs.

I certainly don't think that you'll find Tony arguing that he expects to
see 2^128 allocated addresses in 20 years, that would be folly.   I doubt
you'd even seem him arguing that (the more correct for IPv6 number) there
is any realistic chance of there being 2^48 sites (networks) in 20 years.
That's pretty hard to imagine as well.   The real question comes down to
just how much address space will be wasted by allocation policies (of the
2^48 that is really available for allocation).   It is very hard to fortell
the future, but I think that we pretty much understand the implications of
what we're doing in this area now, and can plan the allocation strategy
so that we won't run out into way into the indefinite future.  We can (and 
have) also planned the technology to make it much much easier to rectify
mistakes if we do make them in this area.  Ie: renumbering should be possible.

The problems for IPv6 aren't going to come from running out of address space.
Its time will end when something that we aren't even considering to be an
issue now, and hence aren't planning for at all, arises and bites us.
Obviously, what that will be we simply don't, and can't, know.  If we could
we could plan for it, and avoid it - and it would be something else that
will eventually become the big problem.

For some numbers, 2^48 is 2.8E+14 (approx).   But that is sites/networks,
not hosts.   If we assume that an average net size is 100 hosts, we get of
the order of 2.8E+16 hosts, which is 7 orders of magnitude above what we
theoretically have now.   Of course what we really have now is nothing like
that big (IPv4, if not already effectively out of addresses, won't actually
hold more than about 1E8 hosts, because of the wastage).   And of course,
IPv6 will have wastage as well.   The big advantage that IPv6 gets is that
each of those nets can be very very huge - so the most likely paradigm
shift (connecting huge numbers of things onto the network, and needing a
number for all of them) doesn't affect the IPv6 calculations at all, each
individual network number (of the 2^48 available) has enough space for
anything that anyone would ever want to number (and while current plans
are for a lot of that space to be wasted - or if you like, traded off for
easier configuration - there's no real reason that some new innovation needs
to stick to those plans).

In any case, this issue has been argued over and over again.   There is no
point spending any more time upon it.   The decision has been made, it has
been implemented, and it is in the process of being deployed.   Only time
will ever tell just which of the decisions we have made in the past few years
have been the ones which will cause the greatest grief.  For sure, some of
them are going to have been real disasters (and others, seen with hindsight,
strokes of genius).

kre

---

From: Robert Elz <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 13 Mar 1999 07:08:56 +1100

kre

---

From: Tony Li <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1999 13:16:33 -0800 (PST)

Chet,

|  Ummm, I'm not sure you actually grasp what you just are stating below. 

I do.  I'm not sure that you grasp where I'm coming from.  The sheer number
of addresses is an interesting, but wholly irrelevant number.

|  Can you please show me how you conceivably indicate that both these changes
|  equate to a twenty year address space life?? I would like to see your
|  calculations, before I concede that the quadrupling is insufficient.

It's quite simple.  And it all stems from the fact that we can never use
address space in a dense fashion.  Remember that routing and addressing are
inevitably tied.  If there is no structure to the address, then we have a
flat network, which is clearly not scalable.  On the downside, as you
structure the address, you lose efficiency.  

You can see this today with an IPv4 prefix.  Utilization of a particular
prefix can and historically has been quite poor.  You can find many numbers
in the 10% to .1% range, depending on where you look.

Now, as you grow the network, the amount of state that you can support at
any level is relatively constrained and must not outstrip Moore's Law.  It
may be even more constrained if you want an economically viable solution.

So...  you need to have multiple levels of hierarchy, or what we know today
as multiple levels of aggregation.  Each of these levels of aggregation is
also, in turn, inefficient.  Note that this inefficiency is multiplicative
with each level of aggregation that you perform.

Given these constraints, it's clear if the network is to scale, there needs
to be many levels of aggregation, and that we're quickly looking at
addressing efficiencies that are on the order of 10^-5 to 10^-12.  Sad but
true.  

The problem occurs if we are not efficient in addressing AND the network
grows as wildly as it has.  As you note, IPv6 gives you about 10^19 total
addresses.  This implies that the network is constrained to somewhere
between 10^14 and 10^7 hosts.  Clearly the smaller number is not tractable,
and even the more optimistic number is none too reassuring.

I will happily confess to being a paranoid engineer and wanting much more
margin than these numbers would indicate.

|  Further, who says 20 years is not a long life for a solution. 

I think that it's clear that the next version of IP needs to be regarded as
permanent infrastructure.  That means that it will be installed once, and
persist indefinitely.  Like 120V 60Hz AC.  Like POTS.  

The problem with ubiquity is that it gives you a huge installed base
problem.  And if there's no mechanism for incremental upgrades, you have no
real hope of replacement.

|  BTW: It is easy to take pot shots at the big boys, just make sure that
|  you are playing in their league. 

A fine comment.

|  I would rather implement a 128 bit solution today, that with all the
|  incompatibility issues works; then wait another 6 years while we get IPv8
|  working.

I would rather spend a few years improving the solution before we decide on
it.  And in case there's any confusion, I'm not advocating IPv8.

Tony

---

From: Tony Li <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1999 13:16:33 -0800 (PST)

Chet,

A fine comment.

Tony

---

From: [email-masked] (Uber, Chet)
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1999 15:19:51 -0600

Your replies are seem rationale; although I am still not sure that IPV6 will only
yield a twenty year life. I have also been "schooled" by a number of veteran IETF
people that you were not just talking about address space. I just read your
message as saying: "quadrupling led to a twenty year life;" and you didn't want to
be were we are now in another twenty years -- i.e. another quadrupling would not
get us there. It really sounded different then your reply here.

I now grasp where you were coming from.

I will say I am sorry about the cheap shot about the "big boys;" of which I am not
one BTW ;). I just misjudged your intent.

- Chet

---

From: [email-masked] (Uber, Chet)
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1999 15:19:51 -0600

- Chet

---

From: Christian Huitema <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1999 18:14:07 -0500 (EST)

On Mar 13,  7:08am, Robert Elz wrote:
> Subject: Re: (!) Vint Cerf designing network for solar system (!)

Well, according to our "netsizer" statistics, based on DNS polling, the
usage per class was the following in February 1999:

         Delegated   Hosts  Efficiency H-ratio
 Class A     37.5%  4.072M      0.51%   0.223
 Class B     68.8% 28.038M      3.80%   0.253
 Class C     62.5% 18.733M      5.58%   0.257
 Global      50.0% 50.843M      2.71%   0.250

While the class A networks have a very poor global usage, you should note
that Net 24 is allocated with an efficiency of 5.73% -- better than the
average class C. Please also note that the total of about 51M hosts
include 6.5M hosts declared in the DNS for "lucent.com" -- these 6.5M are
very likely to be placeholder entries, and to not correspond to real
connections.

> space in it last time I looked.

In fact, the growth occured in all classes, with the largest number added
in the class B -- but this includes the 6.5M fictitious entries in
"lucent.com."

              Delegated            Hosts
             02/97 02/99       02/97   02/99
 Class A     35.9% 37.5%      0.672M  4.072M
 Class B     67.2% 68.8%     10.396M 28.038M
 Class C     50.0% 62.5%      6.666M 18.733M
 Global      46.9% 50.0%     17.734M 50.843M

We delegated 3% of the space in the last 2 years (by opening 6 new /8
prefixes).  Between all classes, there are 96 such prefixes left, which
would allow for 32 years of linear growth, or 6 years of exponential 100%
per year growth, or anything in between depending on your preferred model,
or less, or more, depending of economic conditions in various places of
the world, and of teh advent or not of various kinds of conencted
appliances.

-- 
Christian Huitema
------------------------------
Please note my new address: [email-masked]
http://www.telcordia.com/

---

From: Christian Huitema <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1999 18:14:07 -0500 (EST)

Delegated            Hosts
             02/97 02/99       02/97   02/99

---

From: Frank Solensky <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 14 Mar 1999 23:23:59 -0500

> absurdly inflated over real needs) and hence forcing abominations like NAT

Folks:
The web page for the IPv4 address space deployment graphs has just been
put into place, reflecting data up to early last September.  See
http://ipv4space.TopLayer.Com.  It hasn't changed too much since the
last set, still leveling off below 50% deployment, suggesting that
the level of draconianness could be lessened a bit.

The page doesn't currently display well on a 640x480 display; I'll
try to fix that once I get back next week.

---

From: Frank Solensky <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 14 Mar 1999 23:23:59 -0500

Folks:

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1999 12:56:46 +0000

I have to point out that the mathematical model that Frank uses
is *very much disputed* by some people, and a casual glance
at the data shows that other models would give a wildly
different result.

Basically Frank fits a curve that is bound to level off, so
it levels off. If you fit a least-squares straight line the
result is clearly address exhaustion at some date fairly early
next century.

You have to remember that the growth over the last few years has
been artificially contained by very restrictive allocation
policies; and that was done to give us time to get the real
solution ready.

   Brian Carpenter
   IAB Chair

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1999 12:56:46 +0000

Brian Carpenter
   IAB Chair

---

From: Frank Solensky <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1999 09:17:48 -0500

> policies; and that was done to give us time to get the real

To be honest, I hadn't heard any strong disagreements with the
model for quite a while: even then, the criticisms were in the
realm of not including predictions of the unknowable.  While
eyeballing the lines leads me to believe that a linear or
exponential growth model is less appropriate, I'll add another
graph or two based on those assumptions when I get back.

---

From: Frank Solensky <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1999 09:17:48 -0500

---

From: Geoff Huston <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 08:00:45 +1100

>graph or two based on those assumptions when I get back.

Perhaps you never heard disagreements because you were careful
to preface your presentations with the remark that you were
using a best fit logistic curve to the data, and what you were
looking for was the value at which the best fit logistic curve
flattened out. As far as I'm aware you never claimed that a
logistic curve was the optimal best fit to the data when
considering a logistic function as against any number of other
statistical functions. Given such a caveat it was difficult
to disagree with your presentations in any case!

Considering the various factors that influence the raw data
that we've had to work with (the data records are very piecemeal
because of the various practices used in the past in address
allocation recording) I'd be somewhat hesitant to take _any_
particular statistical model as a 'best fit' to the data. 

There are two potential questions that could be asked:

1) IF the growth is a logistic function, and market saturation
   will occur sometime in the future, at what level of address
   usage will saturation occur, given an extrapolation from
   historical allocation data?
  
      (This is the question I believe you have been addressing in your
       graphs.)

The second question is somewhat different:

2) IF the growth is unbounded, at what point in time will the IPv4
   address pool be fully allocated?

But I'd suggest that the answer to either is going to be about
as useful as consulting your favorite mystical soothsayer.
Given the interplay between address registry policies, technology
shifts leading to more widespread deployment scenarios for IP, and
the marketing efforts of the ISPs and the telcos, any form of
statistical extrapolation of address space consumption based on
historical data is going to be a stab in the dark in any case!

---

From: Geoff Huston <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 08:00:45 +1100