[members-discuss] Interesting IP count

Hi

And I just find another interesting number of internet user base.

Internet users worldwide by regions, year-end 2011 (December 2011):
WORLDWIDE: 2,267,233,742
- Asia: 1,016,799,076 (44.8% of internet users worldwide)
- Europe: 500,723,686 (22.1%)
- North America: 273,067,546 (12.0%)
- Latin America / Caribbean: 235,819,740 (10.4%)
- Africa: 139,875,242 (6.2%)
- Middle East: 77,020,995 (3.4%)
- Oceania / Australia: 23,927,457 (1.1%)

So, US are using 40% of total world IP supply for it's 10% of world
internet user base, while asian for years, is using about 10% of world
IP address to supply 40% of internet user base.

In which, tells us that if US can free us even half of it's IP address
space, that will supply us maybe another decades.

On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 1:30 AM, Lu Heng <h.lu at anytimechinese.com> wrote:
> Hi Job
>
> On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 1:19 AM, Job Snijders <job at instituut.net> wrote:
>> Hi Lu Heng,
>>
>> On 5 jun. 2012, at 01:03, Lu Heng wrote:
>>
>>> Second I want to make perfect clear that I have no doubts about how
>>> serious IPv6 is, and how urgent we need to do it.
>>
>> :-)
>>
>>> But Job you are perfectly right, this topic most of us has come over
>>> multiple times, and I am sorry to bring this up again.
>>
>> No, do not feel sorry, IP economics change over time. Especially given that
>> World IPv6 Laundry day is around the corner, it's worth discussing.
>>
> Thanks:)
>>> As I have been to Asian a lot, which is the first region out of IP
>>> spaces, but I find out most of my Chinese colleagues have never
>>> worried about IP issues.
>>> Even China telecom are charging over 10USD/month/IP, most ISP are just
>>> ok with it.
>>> because end of the day, 10USD/month isn't a lot for enterprise customer.
>>
>> You are talking about _today_ I assume. I think at some point the cost of
>> maintaining IPv4 space will be higher than just deploying IPv6 on the
>> devices that talk to other continents.
>
> No, what I mean here is, the real economically pressure that at least
> from my experiences with current enterprise customer, they don't
> really have any, because IP has been THE most profitable thing for
> almost all major commercial ISPs, look at this way, we get IP for
> free, and we sell it at what, 10,20,50 even sometime 100USD per year
> per IP.
>
> If we looking at the real rate the enterprise customer are paying for
> today, it is not really much of hurry for them to rush for the IPv6 at
> all--they paying this costs for years anyway.
>
> The video you have showed, randy was perfect right in the video, one
> day, we will hit a wall that will make our IPv4 costs so high that we
> have to go IPv6, but the question is, when?
>
> We know we are going to running out of IP address 20 years ago, but
> look at today's market you will find out that not many people are even
> heard of IPv6, it always be an "new and interesting and far future"
> thing.
>>
>>> NAT has limited functionality, yes, but for most cable network users,
>>> that functionality is enough for them.
>>
>> Might be true, but I like a world where everybody can run any service
>> on their IP addresses without jumping through NAT hoops.
>
> We are jumping though NAT hoops already these days, look at Chinese
> market, the largest internet user base, they are living an happy life
> with their carrier NAT for years.
>
> And another thing is, US are wasting enormous amount of IPs nowadays,
> they have less user base then China, but they are using about 10 times
> more than China, if we can make US use their IPs more effectively, in
> which I  it might be as the market price come into play, the intention
> of re-writing software to support v6 might be well delayed for
> sometime.
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> Job
>>
>
>
>
> --
> --
> Kind regards.
> Lu
>
> This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above.
> It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or
> otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use
> of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the
> intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received
> this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and
> e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this
> message and including the text of the transmission received.



-- 
--
Kind regards.
Lu

This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above.
It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or
otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use
of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the
intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received
this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and
e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this
message and including the text of the transmission received.