February 2006 - address-policy-wg

2005-01 - Last Call for Comments (HD-ratio Proposal)
by RIPE NCC Policy Coordinator 08 Mar '06

08 Mar '06

PDP Number: 2005-01 HD-ratio Proposal Dear Colleagues The proposal to change to RIPE Document ripe-324 is now at its final stage. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2005-1.html Please e-mail any final comments about this proposal to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 7 March 2006. We will publish the new policy after this date if we receive no objections. Regards Adrian Bedford RIPE NCC

3 3

2005-09 Last Call for Comments (IANA Policy for Allocation of IPv6 Blocks to RIRs)
by RIPE NCC Policy Coordinator 28 Feb '06

28 Feb '06

PDP Number: 2005-09 IANA Policy for Allocation of IPv6 Blocks to RIRs Dear Colleagues The proposal described in 2005-09 is now at its final stage. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2005-09.html Please e-mail any final comments about this proposal to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 27 March 2006. We will publish the new policy after this date if we receive no objections. Regards Adrian Bedford RIPE NCC Policy Coordinator

1 0

RE: [ppml] [address-policy-wg] 2005-01 - Last Call for Comments(HD-ratio Proposal)
by Davis, Terry L 24 Feb '06

24 Feb '06

Geoff/Randy Just as an aside, efficiency targets probably won't work when applied to mobile networks. Most large global mobile (ships & planes) platforms won't use but a much smaller fraction of the assignment. /24 is the smallest workable unit for global movement with any currently defined schemes. Localized mobility (trains/ferries/trucking) within a small geographical area (or even possibly even a region) may be able to get higher efficiencies depending on strategy/architecture. Take care Terry -----Original Message----- From: Geoff Huston [mailto:gih@apnic.net] Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 7:44 PM To: Randy Bush Cc: ppml(a)arin.net; address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net; sig-policy(a)apnic.net Subject: Re: [ppml] [address-policy-wg] 2005-01 - Last Call for Comments(HD-ratio Proposal) At 02:07 PM 23/02/2006, Randy Bush wrote: > > HD Ratio Ratio Mean Std Dev > > 0.98 1.04868 0.02285 > > 0.97 1.25899 0.03363 > > 0.96 1.45854 0.03371 > > 0.95 1.63073 0.02848 > > 0.94 1.78332 0.01859 > >and what does .98 do to the flight ceiling of small folk? > >randy I'll respond to this question, but in the interests of not wishing to overwhelming a whole swag of mailing lists I'll make this my last posting on this topic today. An HD Ratio of 0.98 imposes a higher efficiency target than the existing 80% rate for all prefix sizes smaller than a /16, and lower than 80% for allocations greater than a /16 (e.g. an HD Ratio of 0.98 implies an efficiency threshold of 72% for a /9 allocation.) As an example, if you had an end use population of between 3,277 and 6,554 numbered devices you would qualify for a /19 allocation under an 80% rule, while under an HD Ratio of 0.98 the end use population is between 3,468 and 6,841, corresponding to a required address efficiency level of 84% on this address block in order to qualify for a further address allocation. The use of an HD Ratio of 0.96 corresponds to an 80% efficiency level for a /24, so that 0.96 is no worse than 80% for all allocations, whereas HD Ratios greater than 0.96 impose an efficiency constraint greater than 80% on the smaller address blocks (/16 through to /24) - this can be easily modelled on any spreadsheet of course. regards, Geoff _______________________________________________ PPML mailing list PPML(a)arin.net http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml

2 1

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2005-01 - Last Call for Comments (HD-ratio Proposal)
by Rene Wilhelm 23 Feb '06

23 Feb '06

> Have either of you run the simulations with other HDR values? Would .97 make > a significant difference? I also did 0.966, the value proposed in the RIPE48 meeting (may 2004). With an HD ratio of 0.966 the projected increase for the historic RIPE NCC allocations is 22% on 1/1/2006. >> my analysis only looked at the 5,121 allocations done by RIPE NCC >> in 2003-2006. Ooops, wrong number slipped in. It's not 5,121 but 2,939 allocations done by the NCC between 1/1/2003 and 1/1/2006. -- Rene

3 2

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2005-01 - Last Call for Comments (HD-ratio Proposal)
by Rene Wilhelm 23 Feb '06

23 Feb '06

Hi Geoff, > I was also surprised by this number [46%] when I first saw it in the output. Your number is higher, but the analysis I did also showed HD ratio could have a significant impact on the address space consumption. (http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/comments/impact_of_hd.html posted on this list some weeks ago) Looking at all invidual allocations done by RIPE NCC between 2003 and 2006, we modelled the observed growth to a policy which used HDR 0.96 instead of 80% utilisation as the criterium for an LIR to be eligible to receive an additional allocation. Starting 1/1/2003 and stepping through time the simulation thus determined the address space held by each LIR on a day by day basis. By 1/1/2006 this resulted in some 60 million (about 30% of the total) more addresses allocated compared to what we actually had handed out under the 80% rule. Reading your report, I believe one of the reasons our numbers differ is that you are simulating 10,000 allocations; my analysis only looked at the 5,121 allocations done by RIPE NCC in 2003-2006. Since the effects of HD ratio are progressive, the more allocations you simulate, the higher the relative increase in address space consumption becomes. > This experiment has been repeated 1,000 times in order to determine a > stable average value for the relative increase in address consumption > corresponding to a change in the address allocation policies from uniform > 80% to an HD Ratio of 0.96, assuming constant demand for addresses. To get a feeling of how stable your average is, could you indicate what the variation, the standard deviation in these 1,000 repeats is? i.e. did all 1000 give you a number close to 46% or were they spread out a lot? > A related consideration is that of the adoption of such a policy proposal > by all 5 RIRs. >From http://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/proposal_archive.html I understand ARIN already abandoned two proposals to use HD ratio for IPv4 allocations (nrs. 2004-2 and 2003-10). Regards, -- Rene =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Rene Wilhelm RIPE Network Coordination Centre Email: wilhelm(a)ripe.net Amsterdam, the Netherlands Phone: +31 20 535 4417 Fax: +31 20 535 4445 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

4 5

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2005-01 - Last Call for Comments (HD-ratio Proposal)
by Geoff Huston 23 Feb '06

23 Feb '06

Here is the promised report on the address consumption implications of the policy proposal 2005-1 (HD-Ratio Proposal) If there is any other aspect of implications of adoption of this proposal that folk may want investigated I'd be happy to see what I can do. Also if any part of this report is unclear I'd be happy to attempt to clarify further the process I've used here. I trust that this report is helpful in terms of assessing some of the impacts of the proposal. regards, Geoff Huston An Analysis of the Sensitivity of using the HD Ratio for IPv4 Address Allocations Geoff Huston V1.0 22 February 2005 This document describes the outcomes of an analytical process intended to describe the sensitivity of the use of HD Ratio metrics as the means of assessing address utilization efficiency, and the relation between the use of HD Ratio values and projected lifetimes of the unallocated IPv4 address pool. This document is a commentary on RIPE Policy Proposal 2005-1 1. Methodology -------------- The methodology used here uses only published RIR allocation data. The primary data source for RIPE NCC data is the delegated file: ftp://ftp.ripe.net/pub/stats/ripencc/delegated-ripencc-latest All IPv4 allocation records with an allocation date on or after 1-Jan-2000 are collected. The allocation sizes are rounded up to the next largest power of 2, or 256, which is the greatest. The relative proportion of each allocation size is also calculated. This is shown in the table below (Table 1). ---------------------------------------------------------------- Table 1 - RIPE NCC IPV4 Address Allocations (since 1-Jan-2000) Size Number Relative Cumulative Frequency Relative Frequency /24 2637 23.04 23.04 /23 1383 12.09 35.13 /22 934 8.16 43.29 /21 545 4.76 48.06 /20 2247 19.64 67.69 /19 1713 14.97 82.66 /18 784 6.85 89.51 /17 407 3.56 93.07 /16 499 4.36 97.43 /15 135 1.18 98.61 /14 75 0.66 99.27 /13 44 0.38 99.65 /12 21 0.18 99.83 /11 15 0.13 99.97 /10 4 0.03 100.00 ---------------------------------------------------------------- The assumption made here is that these allocations are made under a policy of a uniform 80% utilization efficiency. From this can be calculated the inferred maximum end use count for each prefix size (Table 2). ---------------------------------------------------------------- Table 2 - Inferred Maximum End Population Count for each Prefix Size under the uniform 80% efficiency policy /24 205 /23 410 /22 819 /21 1638 /20 3277 /19 6554 /18 13107 /17 26214 /16 52429 /15 104858 /14 209715 /13 419430 /12 838861 /11 1677722 /10 3355443 /9 6710886 /8 13421773 ---------------------------------------------------------------- The HD ratio is calculated by the function: HD = log(used)/log(addresses). This implies that the population can be inferred for any given prefix size using the equation: used = 10**(HD x log_base_10(addresses). The inferred maximum end use count for each prefix size using an HD Ratio value of 0.96 is shown below (Table 3). ---------------------------------------------------------------- Table 3 - Inferred Maximum End Population Count for each Prefix Size under an HD = 0.96 allocation policy /24 205 /23 399 /22 776 /21 1510 /20 2937 /19 5713 /18 11113 /17 21619 /16 42055 /15 81811 /14 159147 /13 309590 /12 602249 /11 1171560 /10 2279048 /9 4433455 /8 8624444 ---------------------------------------------------------------- The next step is to determine the relative impact on address consumption by changing from a uniform 80% utilization efficiency metric to one determined by an HD Ratio setting of 0.96. To do this a sequence of 10,000 allocations are simulated. with each allocation being in the range of a /24 to a /10 prefix. with a probability of any particular prefix being selected based on the relatively frequency distribution of Table 1. The inferred population lies between the maximum population of this prefix and that of the population of the next smaller prefix in Table 2. A random value is drawn from this population range (this is a uniform probability selection between the two extreme population values, so that any population value is equally likely to be selected). This population value is used as a lookup key into Table 3, and the next highest population count is used to determine the equivalent HD Ratio allocated prefix. In effect, this approach generates a series of demand populations that would generate the existing RIR allocation prefix distribution, and then uses this population set to generate a HD-Ratio- based set of allocations that would correspond to this population distribution. The total amount of allocated address space is calculated in each case, and the ratio of the two address pool sizes is recorded. This experiment has been repeated 1,000 times in order to determine a stable average value for the relative increase in address consumption corresponding to a change in the address allocation policies from uniform 80% to an HD Ratio of 0.96, assuming constant demand for addresses. This relative change in address demands can then be added into the IPv4 address consumption projection (see http://ipv4.potaroo.net). The change here is in the simulation of the address consumption model, where in the base model all RIR's are assumed to be operating a uniform address efficiency metric of a uniform 80% utilization target. The same exponential growth model in advertised address growth is used, but this model is augmented by the relative increase in address consumption as contributed by the HD Ratio allocation metric. The unadvertised address ratio is then derived from this higher advertised address count, and this, in turn, generates a more rapid overall address consumption model. The measure under investigation in this case is the change in predicted date of the exhaustion of the IANA unallocated address pool 2. Results --------- The relative distribution of allocated prefixes by the RIPE NCC using an HD Ratio of 0.96 as an allocation efficiency metric would be as shown in Table 4. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Table 4 - RIPE NCC IPV4 Address Allocations Size 2000-2006 HD Ratio Relative Relative Frequency Frequency /24 23.04 23.23 /23 12.09 11.37 /22 8.16 7.87 /21 4.76 4.85 /20 19.64 16.33 /19 14.97 15.21 /18 6.85 8.58 /17 3.56 4.39 /16 4.36 3.88 /15 1.18 2.39 /14 0.66 0.86 /13 0.38 0.50 /12 0.18 0.28 /11 0.13 0.15 /10 0.03 0.09 /9 0.00 0.02 /8 0.00 0.00 ---------------------------------------------------------------- From the simulations of registry allocations, the use of an HD Ratio of 0.96 for IPv4 address allocations made by the RIPE NCC is predicted to increase total address consumption by 46% over the existing flat 80% utilization allocation policy framework. The current prediction for the data of exhaustion of the IANA unallocated address pool is 12 January 2012, assuming, among other factors, a continued application of the constant 80% address utilization metric. If the RIPE NCC were to adopt an allocation policy of using an HD Ratio of 0.96 to access IPv4 address allocations, and no other changes were made to the mode, and no other RIRs were to adopt such a policy to use the HS Ratio as a utilization metric, then the impact on the predicted exhaustion date is an overall change in address consumption rates by approximately 17% (as the RIPE NCC is responsible for some 38% of all allocated IPv4 addresses), and a predicted unallocated IANA pool exhaustion date of 9 December 2010 under these conditions (or approximately 1 year earlier than the predictions using the current address allocation policy framework A related consideration is that of the adoption of such a policy proposal by all 5 RIRs. If this were the case, and the adoption of this policy was to be effective immediately, then the relative increase in overall address consumption for each RIR would be: Afrinic 39%, APNIC 47%, ARIN 46%, LACNIC 47%. The simulation of IPv4 address consumption under these conditions predicts that the IANA pool of unallocated addresses would be exhausted by 22 March 2010 (or approximately 2 years earlier than the predictions using the current address allocation policy framework). -------------------------------------------------- At 05:34 PM 21/02/2006, Geoff Huston wrote: >Hi, > >I was wondering if it would help to look at the potential impact of this policy on IPv4 address consumption predictions. I have built a model of projection IPv4 address consumption based on continuity of current address allocation policies <http://ipv4.potaroo.net>http://ipv4.potaroo.net, and it may be useful to look at the impact of using the HD ratio on this model. I'll try and get some results posted by the end of this week on a simulation of the effects of adoption of this policy proposal > >thanks, > > Geoff > > > > >On 2/7/06, RIPE NCC Policy Coordinator <<mailto:adrian@ripe.net>adrian(a)ripe.net> wrote: >PDP Number: 2005-01 >HD-ratio Proposal > >Dear Colleagues > >The proposal to change to RIPE Document ripe-324 is now at its final stage. > >You can find the full proposal at: > > <http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2005-1.html>http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2005-1.html > >Please e-mail any final comments about this proposal to <mailto:address-policy-wg@ripe.net>address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 7 March 2006. > >We will publish the new policy after this date if we receive no objections. > >Regards > >Adrian Bedford >RIPE NCC >

2 4

2005-01 Last Call for Comments (HD-ration Proposal)
by RIPE NCC Policy Coordinator 07 Feb '06

07 Feb '06

[apologies for duplicate e-mails] PDP Number: 2005-01 HD-ratio Proposal Dear Colleagues We have updated the proposal to change ripe-368 - "IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region". The update reflects the changes made when ripe-368 recently replaced ripe-324. We have also updated the draft RIPE Document to remove an additional reference to the 80% rule. You can find the updated draft RIPE Document at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/ipv4-policies-draft.html Regards Adrian Bedford RIPE NCC

1 0

Updated RIPE Document available
by Laura Cobley 06 Feb '06

06 Feb '06

[Apologies for duplicate e-mails.] Dear Colleagues, We are pleased to announce the publication of an updated RIPE Document. ripe-368 IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region. You can find this document at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ipv4-policies.html We have removed the references to African registries. This is in accordance with policy proposal 2005-05 "Proposal to Remove Special African Policies From RIPE Policy Documents". Best Regards, Laura Cobley Registration Services RIPE NCC

1 0

(2005-01) HD-ratio proposal
by leo vegoda 02 Feb '06

02 Feb '06

Dear Colleagues, Proposal 2005-01 has been in discussion for a while. The RIPE NCC's René Wilhelm has done an analysis of its possible impact on the consumption of IPv4 address space. The analysis shows an increase in the number of IPv4 addresses allocated. Details of the analysis are available on our web site at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/comments/impact_of_hd.html Kind regards, -- leo vegoda RIPE NCC Registration Services Manager

3 2

2005-09 New Draft Document Published (IANA Policy for Allocation of IPv6 Blocks to RIRs)
by RIPE NCC Policy Coordinator 01 Feb '06

01 Feb '06

PDP Number: 2005-09 Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Policy for Allocation of IPv6 Blocks to Regional Internet Registries Dear Colleagues We have published a draft document for the proposal described in 2005-09. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2005-09.html We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 27 February 2006. Regards Adrian Bedford RIPE NCC

2 1