A Pragmatic Report on IPv4 Address Space Consumption
Thanks for a great round up in IPJ Volume 8, No. 3 on IPv6. This really helps focus where the state of the discussion
needs to be in terms of addressing IPv6 deployment. You might be interested to know that this edition of the IPJ received
tremendous interest in the UK. Within 24 hours of it arriving on your website, it was being distributed widely by several
mailing lists serving communities from the Ministry of Defence (MoD) to important communications industry membership
organisations. I received it myself at least three times from different lists!
Over recent months, I’ve seen a continuing trend to try to sideline IPv6 as not relevant to a particular discussion. IPv6
is either too low level for applications providers to think about, or too far off, or doesn’t support some essential
infrastructure service today. Some communities feel they have more than adequate IPv4 addresses to meet their foreseeable
needs. These factors continue to drive debate on “if ever” rather than on “when” and “how” to deploy. That is, if the debate
happens at all. All those who are investing in future IP-related services and networks need to read this edition of the
Internet Protocol Journal for a reality check.
Tony Hain’s article provides a compelling addition to the work you’ve already published by Geoff Huston on the analysis of
IP address allocation, and is important food for thought that I think justifies increasing the urgency with which IPv6
support is treated. The discussion you hosted between Tony, Geoff with John Klensin and Fred Baker I think dealt very clearly
with why the debate needs to be focused on the how and the when rather than on the if.
In the UK, we are seeing some significant investments made to enable IP level infrastructure with the intent of delivering
profoundly new services into the twenty-first century, but none of these major investments appears to have included a vision
for IPv6. So I think the point that was made concerning the current failure in making like-for-like investment decisions
between v4 and v6 is hugely important for Chief Information Officers and Chief Financial Officers to take to their boards, or
we will continue to find people investing for the past, rather than as they apparently believe, their future.
The analysis undertaken by Tony Hain and debated by some recognised experts makes it abundantly clear that the deployment
of IPv6 is an immediate natural growth path to sustainability and global mass-market penetration of the Internet, beyond its
worldwide current rate of less than 15%.
Tony has presented his study in the recent IPv6 Forum Summits (Seoul, Taipei, San Jose and Canberra) and
obviously took a lot of people by surprise as previous studies maintained the suspense that the deployment of IPv6 should be
an incremental transition and not an imminent and real migration. It was therefore decided to responsibly and morally act on
this and renew a global Call to Action to set 2008 as a milestone of inevitable smooth transition in a softer form as a Y2K
or Yv4 (The Year when IPv4 addresses will become hard to get) and get engineers to plan for it.
A global worldwide press release was published October 11, 2005 and can be read on the web site of the IPv6 Forum:
The IPv6 Forum would like to recognise the work of The Internet Protocol Journal in watching diligently this
space for the past couple of years and for initiating and orchestrating the constructive and consensual debate included at
the end of the study, a contribution we trust is of great significance to the global good of the Internet.
Dr. Vint Cerf, VP and Chief Internet Evangelist
Google Inc, USA
Dr. Jon Crowcroft, Marconi Professor of Communications Systems
University of Cambridge, England
Distinguished Career Professor of Computer Science and Public Policy
Carnegie Mellon University, USA
Peter Löthberg, Network Architect
Stupi AB, Sweden
Dr. Jun Murai, Professor, WIDE Project
Keio University, Japan
Dr. Deepinder Sidhu, Professor, Computer Science & Electrical Engineering, University of Maryland,
Baltimore County Director, Maryland Center for Telecommunications Research, USA
Pindar Wong, Chairman and President
VeriFi Limited, Hong Kong
This publication is distributed on an “as-is” basis, without warranty of any kind either express or implied, including but
not limited to the implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, or non-infringement. This
publication could contain technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Later issues may modify or update information
provided in this issue. Neither the publisher nor any contributor shall have any liability to any person for any loss or
damage caused directly or indirectly by the information contained herein.
The Internet Protocol Journal is published quarterly by the Chief Technology Office, Cisco Systems, Inc. www.cisco.com
Tel: +1 408 526-4000
Cisco, Cisco Systems, and the Cisco Systems logo are registered trademarks of Cisco Systems, Inc. in the USA and certain
other countries. All other trademarks mentioned in this document are the property of their respective owners.