Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-05 New Policy Proposal (Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies) - HD-ratio
Hi Leo, I’ve decided to propose, for this discussion, 75%, following ARIN similar policy. I believe is a fair threshold when a network is expanding number of customers, to allow the ISP to plan ahead with sufficient anticipation. So yes, you’re right that we could split the question in two: 1) Do you agree removing the HD-ratio and using a % utilization value instead? 2) If yes to 1), What % do you think is a good threshold? My point of view is that HD-ratio makes it unnecesarily complex, and causes confusion if you’re using something different than /56, as the actual table in the existing policy works based on that, but you may be assigning /48, a mix of /48 and /56, or something else. Regards, Jordi -----Mensaje original----- De: address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net> en nombre de Leo Vegoda <leo.vegoda@icann.org> Responder a: <leo.vegoda@icann.org> Fecha: martes, 20 de diciembre de 2016, 10:03 Para: "jordi.palet@consulintel.es" <jordi.palet@consulintel.es>, "address-policy-wg@ripe.net" <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-05 New Policy Proposal (Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies) - HD-ratio Hi Jordi, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: [...] > So what do you think about: > > 5.2.1 Subsequent allocation criteria > Subsequent allocation will be provided when an organisation (i.e. > ISP/LIR): > a. Shows utilization of 75% or more of their total addressing space. How did you decide on 75%? Is that value of any particular significance or are there two parts to your question: firstly, should the HD-ratio be replaced with a single percentage and secondly a discussion about what that percentage might be? Kind regards, Leo Vegoda ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.consulintel.es The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.
Hi, just a few bits of clarification... On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 11:30:13AM -0500, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
I???ve decided to propose, for this discussion, 75%, following ARIN similar policy. I believe is a fair threshold when a network is expanding number of customers, to allow the ISP to plan ahead with sufficient anticipation.
Well, the reason for HD ratio is that a fixed utilization rate was seen as "too unflexible to accomodate aggregation loss on multiple hierarchies", especially in large networks - where HD ratio requires FAR less than 75%, so that would be a large change towards a much more conservative(!) rule.
So yes, you???re right that we could split the question in two: 1) Do you agree removing the HD-ratio and using a % utilization value instead? 2) If yes to 1), What % do you think is a good threshold?
My point of view is that HD-ratio makes it unnecesarily complex, and causes confusion if you???re using something different than /56, as the actual table in the existing policy works based on that, but you may be assigning /48, a mix of /48 and /56, or something else.
The "confusion" about /48 and /56 has been brought up a few times, and the NCC has made it clear that they consider "a single assigned /48" to be the equivalent of "256 /56s" for the purpose of evaluating HD ratio. Nothing really "complex" or "confusing" here - you count your /56s, you look up the HD value that applies to your network size, and then you have a clear "ratio reached / not reached" answer. Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
While I agree with you about the complexity of HD-Ratio, I would not recommend you simply replace HD-Ratio with ARIN's 75% threshold using RIPE's current IPv6 policy model. In 2010 and 2011 the ARIN Policy Community did a complete rethink and realignment of our model for IPv6 allocations and assignments. These were policies ARIN-2010-4, ARIN-2010-8, and ARIN-2011-3. Additionally, ARIN-2016-6, which was recently recommended to the ARIN board and awaits their final approval and implementation by ARIN Staff probably sometime next year, removes the vestigial use of HD-Ratio and finally removes HD-Ratio from ARIN's NRPM. https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2010_4.html https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2010_8.html https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2011_3.html https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2016_6.html The overall goal of these policies was to provide a very generous initial IPv6 allocation or assignment, in most cases entities shouldn't have to come back ever or if the do they should only have to come back once or in rare cases twice in a lifetime. A /48 or /32 are only intended as the starting point for an end-user (PI) assignment or an ISP or LIR (PA) allocation respectively. There is a relatively conservative 75% threshold, but this is balanced by very generous increase, by a whole nibble or 16 times, once the threshold is crossed. Simply plucking the 75% threshold out of a complete and holistic rethink of IPv6 policy would be unadvisable, and I don't think would serve the RIPE community well. Thanks. On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 10:30 AM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ < jordi.palet@consulintel.es> wrote:
Hi Leo,
I’ve decided to propose, for this discussion, 75%, following ARIN similar policy. I believe is a fair threshold when a network is expanding number of customers, to allow the ISP to plan ahead with sufficient anticipation.
So yes, you’re right that we could split the question in two: 1) Do you agree removing the HD-ratio and using a % utilization value instead? 2) If yes to 1), What % do you think is a good threshold?
My point of view is that HD-ratio makes it unnecesarily complex, and causes confusion if you’re using something different than /56, as the actual table in the existing policy works based on that, but you may be assigning /48, a mix of /48 and /56, or something else.
Regards, Jordi
-----Mensaje original----- De: address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net> en nombre de Leo Vegoda <leo.vegoda@icann.org> Responder a: <leo.vegoda@icann.org> Fecha: martes, 20 de diciembre de 2016, 10:03 Para: "jordi.palet@consulintel.es" <jordi.palet@consulintel.es>, " address-policy-wg@ripe.net" <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-05 New Policy Proposal (Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies) - HD-ratio
Hi Jordi,
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
[...]
> So what do you think about: > > 5.2.1 Subsequent allocation criteria > Subsequent allocation will be provided when an organisation (i.e. > ISP/LIR): > a. Shows utilization of 75% or more of their total addressing space.
How did you decide on 75%? Is that value of any particular significance or are there two parts to your question: firstly, should the HD-ratio be replaced with a single percentage and secondly a discussion about what that percentage might be?
Kind regards,
Leo Vegoda
********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.consulintel.es The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.
-- =============================================== David Farmer Email:farmer@umn.edu Networking & Telecommunication Services Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952 ===============================================
participants (3)
-
David Farmer -
Gert Doering -
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ