Michael and all, Good point. My question is, isn't this something that should be addressed more fully by ICANN in terms of policy rather than the RIR's independantly? Just a thought... michael.dillon@bt.com wrote:
... has anybody got a link to the actual paper? Based on the press reports, the methodology seems flawed, and the claims about unprecedented scope look bogus.
The methodology is very flawed because it does not account for private internetworks, which do not exchange traffic with the Internet. Also, although they took some precautions to reduce the loss of their probe packets, there are still some things like ICMP blocking, which make large chunks of address space completely invisible to them.
You can read their paper at <http://www.isi.edu/~johnh/PAPERS/Heidemann08c.pdf>
It is interesting work from a technical standpoint, but from a policy standpoint, it is not terribly useful since it is intended to measure the public Internet, not the approved usage of the IPv4 address space. Remember, we approve the use of IPv4 addresses that are not assigned to hosts. For instance, a company can assign a /29 to a subnet with 5 hosts, and their LIR will count all 8 addresses as being in use, in conformance with RIPE policy.
--Michael Dillon
Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827