Re: Ha: [address-policy-wg] RE: an arithmetic lesson
To upset some more sentiments; compare v4 /24s with the available v4 unicast; do the same with v6 /24s and current v6 unicast space. Rough arithmetic shows then that in that line of reasoning, a v6 /24 is more comparable to a v4 /20. Remco ----- Original Message ----- From: address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net <address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net> To: Dmitriy V Menzulskiy <DMenzulskiy@beeline.ru> Cc: michael.dillon@bt.com <michael.dillon@bt.com>; address-policy-wg@ripe.net <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Sent: Thu Dec 03 14:20:22 2009 Subject: Re: Ha: [address-policy-wg] RE: an arithmetic lesson On Dec 3, 2009, at 7:55 AM, Dmitriy V Menzulskiy wrote:
On 3 Dec 2009, at 10:00, <michael.dillon@bt.com> wrote:
an IPv6 /24 and an IPv4 /24 use up the same percentage of the
total
address space.
How do you work that out? Please enlighten me. 2^24/2^128 x 100 is many orders of magnitude smaller than 2^24/2^32 x 100: gromit% bc scale=50 2^24/2^128*100 .00000000000000000000000000000493038065763132378300 2^24/2^32*100 .39062500000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
There are of course the same number of IPv4 and IPv6 /24s.
Percentage is calculated by dividing the number of things under consideration by the total number of things. When I used the word "an", I meant one thing.
Assuming that the number of IPv4 and IPv6 /24s is 10
1/10 = 1/10
Assuming that the number of IPv4 and IPv6 /24s is 8192
1/8192 = 1/8192
Assuming that the number of IPv4 and IPv6 /24s is 2882873787
1/2882873787 = 1/2882873787
Do you see a pattern forming?
--Michael Dillon
As I understand:
IPv4 /24 is (Total IPv4)/(2^24) IPv6 /24 is (Total IPv6)/(2^24)
Or not ?
Not. The ratio you want, using your formalism, is (2^(size of address space - 24)) / (Total IPvX) which is 2^(N - 24) / 2^N = 1 / 2^24 (where N is the number of bits in the address space). Regards Marshall
WBR,
Dmitry Menzulskiy, DM3740-RIPE
This email is from Equinix Europe Limited or one of its associated/subsidiary companies. This email, and any files transmitted with it, contains information which is confidential, may be legally privileged and is solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this email immediately. Equinix Europe Limited. Registered Office: Quadrant House, Floor 6, 17 Thomas More Street, Thomas More Square, London E1W 1YW. Registered in England and Wales No. 6293383.
Hmm.. It is (or rather, should be) obvious that there are exactly the same number of /24s or /8s or /<anything up to 32>s in IPv4 as there are in IPv6. It is (or should be) equally obvious to state that the amount addressed by an IPv6 /<anything up to a 32> is VASTLY larger than in IPv4. Except when you blow away the lower 96 bits in an IPv6 address for protocol reasons. When I mentioned class As, I was speaking figuratively. The point that I was attempting to make was that early adopters of IPv4 were able to obtain "class As" with minimal justification. As the IPv4 free pool depletes, it becomes increasingly hard to obtain (the equivalent of) "class As". I suspect most of us now look at the "class A" allocations as historical mistakes that we'd like to remedy, but don't because it is undoubtedly too much trouble (and please, can we not rathole on reclamation of legacy address space yet again?). Allocating IPv6 /24 now when we have "plenty" of IPv6 address space because it makes a particular protocol proposal more convenient is, in my view, simply repeating history. It is _the equivalent of_ allocating "class As". Regards, -drc On Dec 3, 2009, at 7:03 AM, Remco van Mook wrote:
To upset some more sentiments; compare v4 /24s with the available v4 unicast; do the same with v6 /24s and current v6 unicast space. Rough arithmetic shows then that in that line of reasoning, a v6 /24 is more comparable to a v4 /20.
Remco
----- Original Message ----- From: address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net <address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net> To: Dmitriy V Menzulskiy <DMenzulskiy@beeline.ru> Cc: michael.dillon@bt.com <michael.dillon@bt.com>; address-policy-wg@ripe.net <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Sent: Thu Dec 03 14:20:22 2009 Subject: Re: Ha: [address-policy-wg] RE: an arithmetic lesson
On Dec 3, 2009, at 7:55 AM, Dmitriy V Menzulskiy wrote:
On 3 Dec 2009, at 10:00, <michael.dillon@bt.com> wrote:
an IPv6 /24 and an IPv4 /24 use up the same percentage of the
total
address space.
How do you work that out? Please enlighten me. 2^24/2^128 x 100 is many orders of magnitude smaller than 2^24/2^32 x 100: gromit% bc scale=50 2^24/2^128*100 .00000000000000000000000000000493038065763132378300 2^24/2^32*100 .39062500000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
There are of course the same number of IPv4 and IPv6 /24s.
Percentage is calculated by dividing the number of things under consideration by the total number of things. When I used the word "an", I meant one thing.
Assuming that the number of IPv4 and IPv6 /24s is 10
1/10 = 1/10
Assuming that the number of IPv4 and IPv6 /24s is 8192
1/8192 = 1/8192
Assuming that the number of IPv4 and IPv6 /24s is 2882873787
1/2882873787 = 1/2882873787
Do you see a pattern forming?
--Michael Dillon
As I understand:
IPv4 /24 is (Total IPv4)/(2^24) IPv6 /24 is (Total IPv6)/(2^24)
Or not ?
Not.
The ratio you want, using your formalism, is
(2^(size of address space - 24)) / (Total IPvX)
which is 2^(N - 24) / 2^N = 1 / 2^24
(where N is the number of bits in the address space).
Regards Marshall
WBR,
Dmitry Menzulskiy, DM3740-RIPE
This email is from Equinix Europe Limited or one of its associated/subsidiary companies. This email, and any files transmitted with it, contains information which is confidential, may be legally privileged and is solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this email immediately. Equinix Europe Limited. Registered Office: Quadrant House, Floor 6, 17 Thomas More Street, Thomas More Square, London E1W 1YW. Registered in England and Wales No. 6293383.
Hi, On Thu, Dec 03, 2009 at 10:33:17AM -0800, David Conrad wrote:
Allocating IPv6 /24 now when we have "plenty" of IPv6 address space because it makes a particular protocol proposal more convenient is, in my view, simply repeating history. It is _the equivalent of_ allocating "class As".
The math *and* the economics disagree with you. IPv4 class A have been limited to 127 pieces, and they came for free. There's 2 million IPv6 /24s inside FP001, and they come with a yearly price tag, so "not everybody or their dog" are going to ask for one (and, as I said, I know at least one LIR who is most definitely not going to ask for one - so not even every LIR that does deploy IPv6 wants a /24). Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 144438 SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
Gert, here's a hard one - if all new allocations in IPv6 are now going to be /24s, don't you think that will affect the charging scheme since it vastly increases the average amount of address space allocated, therefore lowering the amount that would be charged for such a resource? All of a sudden that large block is just an average size; while I don't claim to understand all the intricacies of the charging scheme I will claim that handing out a larger block isn't necessarily more work than handing out a smaller one, and the way the charging scheme works is not to maximize income, but to match the sum of expenses the NCC makes in order to provide their services. Not that I'm looking for an argument to increase the 'standard' allocation size, but the charging scheme isn't a good argument against, I think. Remco (There were also 2 million Class C blocks, that doesn't make it a good idea to hand out IPv6 in a similar way. Party like it's 1993 stopped in well, 1994.) -----Original Message----- From: Gert Doering [mailto:gert@Space.Net] Sent: donderdag 3 december 2009 23:12 To: David Conrad Cc: Remco van Mook; tme@multicasttech.com; DMenzulskiy@beeline.ru; michael.dillon@bt.com; address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: Ha: [address-policy-wg] RE: an arithmetic lesson Hi, On Thu, Dec 03, 2009 at 10:33:17AM -0800, David Conrad wrote:
Allocating IPv6 /24 now when we have "plenty" of IPv6 address space because it makes a particular protocol proposal more convenient is, in my view, simply repeating history. It is _the equivalent of_ allocating "class As".
The math *and* the economics disagree with you. IPv4 class A have been limited to 127 pieces, and they came for free. There's 2 million IPv6 /24s inside FP001, and they come with a yearly price tag, so "not everybody or their dog" are going to ask for one (and, as I said, I know at least one LIR who is most definitely not going to ask for one - so not even every LIR that does deploy IPv6 wants a /24). Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 144438 SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 This email is from Equinix Europe Limited or one of its associated/subsidiary companies. This email, and any files transmitted with it, contains information which is confidential, may be legally privileged and is solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this email immediately. Equinix Europe Limited. Registered Office: Quadrant House, Floor 6, 17 Thomas More Street, Thomas More Square, London E1W 1YW. Registered in England and Wales No. 6293383.
Hi, On Thu, Dec 03, 2009 at 11:21:04PM +0100, Remco van Mook wrote:
here's a hard one - if all new allocations in IPv6 are now going to be /24s, don't you think that will affect the charging scheme since it vastly increases the average amount of address space allocated, therefore lowering the amount that would be charged for such a resource?
This is actually mixing two different arguments from my end. One argument was "if every LIR gets a /24, we still have just scratched the amount of /24s available, so the world would not stop turning". What you are replying-to was in the context of "if we give LIRs the option(!) to ask for a bigger allocation for 6RDs, this is bad, because all of a sudden every single LIR is going to claim 'we want 6rd!'" (without mentioning a specific "large block!!" size for 6rd deployment) - and in this scenario, blocks of different size would continue to exist, and quite likely have different price tags attached to it (and very likely, different amount of discussion with the IPRAs). So - your assumption "if we give all of them an IPv6 /24, this will be the common size, and the score is very likely going to be lower than for an IPv6 /24 today" is reasonable, but doesn't contradict what I wrote, because that was in the context of "there's different block sizes".
All of a sudden that large block is just an average size; while I don't claim to understand all the intricacies of the charging scheme I will claim that handing out a larger block isn't necessarily more work than handing out a smaller one, and the way the charging scheme works is not to maximize income, but to match the sum of expenses the NCC makes in order to provide their services.
Yes.
Not that I'm looking for an argument to increase the 'standard' allocation size, but the charging scheme isn't a good argument against, I think.
No, there was confusion between two different lines of argument. Note that I did not propose a certain way forward. I was trying to point out why certain "we can't do that, because <the world will end>" statments usually don't properly take the numbers involved into account, or are based on "everbody will..." arguments that are just not so. (The old argument "and everybody thought 640k was enough!" also gets boring after a few repetitions (and has never been helpful in any way, except as a poor excuse of not looking at the bits and doing some math).)
Remco (There were also 2 million Class C blocks, that doesn't make it a good idea to hand out IPv6 in a similar way. Party like it's 1993 stopped in well, 1994.)
I'm not sure why that is an argument for or against anything - we still give out IPv4 in chunks of /24 or bigger. And anybody who goes to the RIPE NCC and asks for IPv4 PI and claims "I have more than 128 machines to number!" *will* get an IPv4 /24. IPv6 /24s would be for LIRs, potentially only for LIRs that fulfill some creative criteria why they need more than <arbitrary number> chunks of addresses. As I said: our LIR wouldn't need a /24. So the number of potential IPv6 /24 holders would be vastly lower than for IPv4. Gert Doering -- no specific hat -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 144438 SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
participants (3)
-
David Conrad -
Gert Doering -
Remco van Mook