A decade's worth of IPv4 addresses

1,370 million IPv4 addresses were used up this past decade. We have 722 million left, so the bottom of the pool is in sight.

There are 3,706,650,624 usable IPv4 addresses. On January 1, 2000, approximately 1,615 million (44 percent) were in use and 2,092 million were still available. Today, ten years later, 2,985 million addresses (81 percent) are in use, and 722 million are still free. In that time, the number of addresses used per year increased from 79 million in 2000 to 203 million in 2009. So it's a near certainty that before Barack Obama vacates the White House, we'll be out of IPv4 address. (Even if he doesn't get re-elected.)

The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA), part of the Internet Corporation for Names and Numbers (ICANN), manages the IPv4 address space. IANA delegates blocks of 16,777,216 addresses called "/8s" to the five Regional Internet Registries (AfriNIC, APNIC, ARIN, LACNIC and the RIPE NCC) which in turn give out address space to Internet Service Providers and (sometimes) end-user organizations. As of the end of 2008, IANA held 34 unused /8s and the RIRs together held 371.91 million unused addresses. The current status is:

Delegated to/status	Blocks	+/- 2009	Addresses (millions)	Used (millions)	Available (millions)
AfriNIC	2		33.55	14.89	18.66
APNIC	34	+4	570.43	540.36	30.06
ARIN	31		520.09	486.58	33.51
LACNIC	6		100.66	79.77	20.89
RIPE NCC	30	+4	503.32	450.11	53.21
RIRs subtotal	103	+8	1728.05	1571.71	156.34
Legacy	92		1543.50	1413.88	129.62
Unallocated	26	-8	436.21		436.21
Totals	221		3707.76	2985.59	722.17

So the IANA global pool was only reduced by 8 /8s, but the RIRs collectively reduced their working inventory by another 5 /8s, bringing the total reduction of the free address space 13 /8s, or 203.4 million IPv4 addresses, to be exact. This makes 2009 the first year since 1992 that the number of IPv4 addresses given out has been more than 200 million. Before 1993, the amount of address space given out was much larger because only class A (16.78 million addresses), class B (65,536 addresses), or class C (256 addresses) blocks could be given out. In 1993 the routing system was upgraded to Classless InterDomain Routing (CIDR), so it could work with address blocks that are an arbitrary power of two in size. (In CIDR notation, a /8 is a block of 2^(32-8) = 16,777,216 addresses.)

There is an old story that Stanford University supposedly has more IPv4 addresses than the entire country of China. At the beginning of the decade, this was true: Stanford had the entire 36.0.0.0/8 class A block, more than twice the less-than 8 million addresses that were given out in China at the time. Times have changed, however. Last year, China passed Japan and took the number-two spot behind the US. This year, organizations in China obtained another 50.67 million addresses for a total of 232 million. And Stanford is one of the very few organizations that has returned a class A block. The top 15 IPv4-using countries are now:

Rank (was)	Country	January 1, 2010 (millions)	January 1, 2009 (millions)	Increase (percent)
1	United States	1495.13	1458.21	2
2	China	232.45	181.80	28
3	Japan	177.15	151.56	17
4	Europe general	149.48	120.29	24
5 (6)	Germany	86.51	81.75	6
6 (9)	Korea	77.77	66.82	16
7	Canada	76.96	74.49	3
8	France	75.54	68.04	11
9 (6)	United Kingdom	74.18	86.31	-14
10	Australia	39.77	36.26	10
11	Brazil	33.95	29.75	14
12	Italy	33.50	29.64	13
13 (14)	Russia	28.47	23.18	23
14 (13)	Taiwan	27.10	24.01	13
15 (17)	Netherlands	22.84	21.67	5

The reduction in address use by the UK is because net 51.0.0.0/8 is now registered as country "EU" rather than "GB". The US now holds a hair over 50 percent of all IPv4 address space given out (down from 52.4  percent a year ago), the other top 15 countries have 38 percent (up from 35.8 percent), and the rest of the world has 12 percent, up from 11.8.

So what does all of this mean for the future? For 2010, probably not much, but 2010 could be the last year for IPv4 as we know it. If IANA goes back to giving out 12 /8s to the RIRs per year, IANA will be giving out the fifth-to-last /8 somewhere in 2011 and then automatically also the other four. After this, it is unlikely that current IPv4 address assignment policies will remain in effect for much longer. This is in line with APNIC's Geoff Huston's automated predictions, which currently peg September 14, 2011 as the day the IANA global pool runs out, and November 1, 2012, as the day we last scrape the bottom of the IPv4 barrel. At that point, running an IPv4 network will start to look a lot like a big game of musical chairs.

The good news is that although a hundred thousand times more IPv6 than IPv4 space has been given out, 99.974 percent of it is still available. So after taking the IPv4-to-IPv6 transition hurdle somewhere between the next Olympics and the next presidential elections, the Internet has ample room to continue growing.

Hasta la Vista, baby: Windows 7

With much fanfare and even a few parties, Windows 7 has arrived. In this extensive review, Peter Bright dives deep into Microsoft's new OS offering to see what's new, what's still the same, and whether it's worth upgrading.

Click here for full article.

FCC proposes network neutrality rules

As expected, the FCC laid out its draft network neutrality rules at an open meeting today. Despite the partial dissent of the two Republican commissioners, the pro-neutrality faction has won a major rhetorical battle; even its toughest opponents sing the praises of a "free and open Internet."
The draft rules are short, taking up less than two pages of text. At their heart are the four existing "Internet freedoms" that the FCC approved back in 2005:

• Consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice
• Consumers are entitled to run applications and use services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement
• Consumers are entitled to connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network
• Consumers are entitled to competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers.

The proposed rules make the principles binding, but they also add two new items to the list: nondiscrimination and transparency.

• A provider of broadband Internet access service must treat lawful content, applications, and services in a nondiscriminatory manner
• A provider of broadband Internet access service must disclose such information concerning network management and other practices as is reasonably required for users and content, application, and service providers to enjoy the protections specified in this rulemaking

Exceptional rules

Are there exceptions? Of course there are, and the ways that the exceptions are put into practice will have a significant effect on US network design.
First, all six principles are subject to "reasonable network management." No one's sure what that means, but the FCC staff have now developed guidance that is far more helpful than the previous (nonexistent) guidance.
Network management is reasonable if it is used

• To manage congestion on networks
• To address harmful traffic (viruses, spam)
• To block unlawful content (child porn)
• To block unlawful transfers of content (copyright infringement)
• For "other reasonable network management practices"

The ambiguity of that last item is striking, and we'll have to see what sorts of things the FCC allows in practice before understanding just how wide this exemption really is.
The second exemption to the rules is for "managed services," another hazy area. FCC staff are defining managed services as offerings that are provided over the same networks as regular Internet access but that "differ from broadband Internet access service in ways that suggest a different policy approach." This includes things like voice services and telemedicine, but it's obviously a pretty broad category, and the FCC is asking for guidance on how to define it.
It appears that the agency is looking for ways to let telcos and cable companies offer additional, prioritized services over a single line, things like analog and digital voice, cable TV, and low-latency connections for medical use.
The rules apply to every Internet connection, wired and wireless, though what is "reasonable" may vary by connection type and even by network speed. As Commissioner Michael Copps put it in his supporting remarks, "What is reasonable today might be unreasonable tomorrow—and vice versa" as networks expand.

There's nothing new here?

Chairman Genachowski pitched the move as evolutionary rather than revolutionary, noting that the FCC in the past (and under Republican leadership) had already adopted the four Internet principles, slapped network neutrality conditions on the AT&T/BellSouth merger, and made the decision to sanction Comcast.
And while he's willing to listen to everyone, people should know that "'anything goes' is not a serious argument" at the Genachowski-led FCC. He argued that proper rules are a spur to investment, not a barrier, and says that he remains fully aware of "the risk of unintended consequences." Hence, the rules are meant to be brief, and to be general, with several big exemptions so as not to bind the agency's hands in the future.
The three Democratic commissioners also called out the scariest rhetoric surrounding network neutrality rules. Mignon Clyburn singled out the parties that prefer "radioactive rhetoric" and said it might yield headlines but not good results with her. Copps bashed the "Chicken Littles running around proclaiming the sky's falling" and called for facts, not fear.

Even those who opposed the rules were limited in their criticism; both Robert McDowell and Meredith Baker applauded the process so far and the idea of the open Internet. Comcast's statement opened the same way: "We share and embrace the objective of an open Internet, as we always have." The cable lobby agrees, telling Ars, "To be clear, we regard this as a debate about means, not ends; we support a free and open Internet."
Everyone loves openness, but the two Republican commissioners worry that FCC rules aren't the way to get there, and both claim that the agency did not have the authority to make such rules.
In an odd twist, the Electronic Frontier Foundation agrees. Despite supporting neutrality, the group argues that "Congress has never given the FCC any authority to regulate the Internet for the purpose of ensuring net neutrality." (This is the basic argument being made now in federal court by Comcast.)

The danger is that such authority over the Internet might today be used for good, but "it could just as easily be invoked tomorrow for any other Internet regulation that the FCC dreams up (including things we won’t like). For example, it doesn't take much imagination to envision a future FCC 'Internet Decency Statement'… And it's also too easy to imagine an FCC 'Internet Lawful Use Policy,' created at the behest of the same entertainment lobby that has long been pressing the FCC to impose DRM on TV and radio, with ISPs required or encouraged to filter or otherwise monitor their users to ensure compliance."

But Genachowski is pushing ahead. Comments on the draft rules are due in January 2010, with reply comments due in March 2010; final rules could arrive by next summer.

Whatever one thinks of the draft rules, it remains encouraging to see the FCC doing things the "right way." Under predecessor Kevin Martin, a "Notice of Proposed Rulemaking" might be issued without containing the actual draft text of the rule—a fact that several commissioners noted. And Genachowski has the FCC blogging (even liveblogging the meeting), is overhauling the agency website, and has ditched the horrible RealPlayer streaming setup in favor of Flash video that actually works the first time. Kudos.

1Mb Broadband Access Becomes Legal Right

Starting next July, every person in Finland will have the right to a one-megabit broadband connection, says the Ministry of Transport and Communications. Finland is the world's first country to create laws guaranteeing broadband access.

The government had already decided to make a 100 Mb broadband connection a legal right by the end of 2015. On Wednesday, the Ministry announced the new goal as an intermediary step.

http://yle.fi/uutiset/news/2009/10/1mb_broadband_access_becomes_legal_right_1080940.html

Smartphones suck 8x more cellular capacity than laptops

Conventional wisdom says that laptops with data cards cause more of a traffic jam on cell networks than handhelds because of the relative increase in data consumption. However, a new study from mobile broadband technology provider Airvana says that smartphones generate the majority of "signaling activity"—messages to and from cell sites for polling purposes. This is an indicator of an "urgent need" for improved data processing among cell networks in the US.

According to Airvana, smartphones generate as much as eight times the network load as laptops on the same network because of how smartphones work. Since they're always on and performing multiple functions at once (acting as a mini-computer, your phone, a mapping device, and whatever else you can think of), they're constantly sending small signals to nearby cell sites—more so than regular cell phones, and much more than laptops using data cards.

"While a smartphone user downloads a fraction (typically 1/25th) of the data consumed by a laptop user, the signaling load produced by the smartphone user is much higher and in fact one third of the laptop user on average," wrote Airvana. "In other words, while it takes 25 smart phones to equal the data throughput from one laptop, it only takes three smart phones to equal the signaling network impact of one laptop (25/3 ≈ 8x)."

This means that cell networks shouldn't so much be concerned with the traffic that laptops might generate if data cards become more popular. Instead, they should focus more on improved data processing and load balancing. With smartphones becoming more popular by the day, the cell networks are already having a hard time keeping up (just look at AT&T with the iPhone), and those numbers are only going to keep going up.

Of course, Airvana has a special interest in pushing its own solutions as part of this report—the company cited a quote from FCC head Julius Genachowski saying that cell networks should focus on offering new technologies "like smart antennas and femtocells." (Coincidentally, that's exactly the kind of thing Airvana offers!) However, the point still stands that smartphones suck a disproportionate amount of network traffic compared to the amount of data they receive, meaning that the looming "spectrum crisis" could pose a much bigger problem than the inability to send tweets from our iPhones.

Wi-Fi Direct protocol to ease peer-to-peer WiFi connections

The Wi-Fi Alliance is close to finalizing a direct peer-to-peer connection standard for WiFi-enabled devices. The standard could potentially supplant Bluetooth beginning as early as 2010.
 

The Wi-Fi Alliance has announced a new way for WiFi-enabled devices to connect to one another, even in the absence of a WiFi base station. The new protocol, dubbed "Wi-Fi Direct," will allow any device that implements the standard to connect directly to another device to send and receive data.
Previously codenamed "Wi-Fi peer to peer," the technology allows any device with WiFi to easily connect to another, such as a cell phone or camera to a printer, or even a keyboard or mouse to a computer. Devices can connect one-to-one or in a group. According to the Wi-Fi Alliance, devices implementing the new standard will even be able to connect to legacy WiFi devices in most cases.

"Wi-Fi Direct represents a leap forward for our industry," said Wi-Fi Alliance executive director Edgar Figueroa in a statement. "Wi-Fi users worldwide will benefit from a single-technology solution to transfer content and share applications quickly and easily among devices, even when a Wi-Fi access point isn't available. The impact is that Wi-Fi will become even more pervasive and useful for consumers and across the enterprise."

The technology seems to compete directly with Bluetooth, which has been the most common standard for direct peer-to-peer device connections. The new Bluetooth 3.0 standard even includes the ability to switch to WiFi protocols for large, sustained data transfers. Like Bluetooth, Wi-Fi Direct devices can discover each other automatically and "advertise" available services. Given these features, Wi-Fi Direct could potentially eliminate the need for implementing both standards in most devices.

A side benefit of Wi-Fi Direct is that it can operate at higher speeds and greater distances than Bluetooth, though Bluetooth typically uses far less power than WiFi. Furthermore, the standard is aimed at enterprise use as well as consumer use, with the inclusion of enterprise management features and WPA2 security.
The Wi-Fi Direct specification is expected to be published as soon as it is finalized and approved by the Wi-Fi Alliance members, and certification will begin in 2010.

Networking Jobs Abound

According to the online blog ArsTechnica, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation met with FCC broadband coordinator Blair Levin, on October 5th 2009. The purpose of that meeting was to provide a cost estimate for one of the Foundation's ideas: running fiber optic cables to every "anchor institution" in the US—libraries, hospitals, community colleges, public schools. The FCC estimates that the entire project could be completed for $5-$10 billion.

It seems that the FCC was intrigued by the idea of running fiber to these "anchor institutions" and is now asking for public comments about the cost and viability of such an undertaking. The Gates Foundation has identified 123,000 "anchor institutions" in local communities that could make good use of fiber Internet connections.

In addition to serving the community that comes to each institution, the idea is also to run fiber into the center of every community in the country, with the goal of making it easier to then expand Internet access to homes and businesses in the community.

See COMMENT SOUGHT ON COST ESTIMATES FOR CONNECTING ANCHOR INSTITUTIONS TO FIBER