On 22/07/2010 09:09, Tony Li wrote:
The whole point is to give the RIRs the technical requirements so that they can set effective policies.
This is a sensible approach, although Fred really hit the nail on the head in his previous email ("What is driving the RIR discussions...").
Again, we are not claiming that this will be the growth rate. We are simply pointing out the mathematical implications of a sustained 54% rate. The number is not arbitrary in the least, it simply shows the implications of where we might be in 30 years.
I meant arbitrary cut-off point rather than arbitrary number, but look, this is a bike-shed issue. The point I was trying to make was that having a malthusian growth table doesn't really add anything to the I-D, which brings us back to your point above. If the RIRs need to be given technical ammo to help them formulate aggregation and dfz prefix-count limitation policies, then the more realistic the models provided, the more likely people will be to pay attention to them. A demonstration of unconstrained exponential growth is not useful from this point of view.
Nick