1 Application of the HD ratio to IPv4 [prop-020-v001] Policy SIG 1 Sept 2004 APNIC18, Nadi, Fiji.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
HD Ratio for IPv4 LACNIC VI Mar 29 - Apr 1, 2004 Montevideo, Uruguay.
Advertisements

ARIN Public Policy Meeting
1 First NIR Meeting Current NIR Address Request Process Overview and Proposal March 1st, Korea, Seoul.
1 IP Policy update - comparative status in all RIR regions Policy SIG 7 Sep 2006 APNIC 22, Kaohsiung, Taiwan Save Vocea.
Current practices in managing IPv4 address space Survey Update Policy SIG Feb APNIC19, Kyoto, Japan.
A S I A P A C I F I C N E T W O R K I N F O R M A T I O N C E N T R E APNIC Open Address Policy Meeting Address Policy SIG October 26th, Brisbane.
HD Ratio for IPv4 APNIC16 - Address Policy SIG Seoul, Korea 20 August 2003.
HD-ratio for IPv4 -A new criteria for applying IP allocation NCIC 新世紀資通股份有限公司 Mars Wei 危之華 3rd TWNIC OPM.
IPv4 Addresses. Internet Protocol: Which version? There are currently two versions of the Internet Protocol in use for the Internet IPv4 (IP Version 4)
December 2013 Internet Number Resource Report. December 2013 Internet Number Resource Report INTERNET NUMBER RESOURCE STATUS REPORT As of 31 December.
March 2014 Internet Number Resource Report. March 2014 Internet Number Resource Report INTERNET NUMBER RESOURCE STATUS REPORT As of 31 March 2014 Prepared.
1 Overview of policy proposals Policy SIG Wednesday 26 August 2009 Beijing, China.
IPv6 Addressing – Status and Policy Report Paul Wilson Director General, APNIC.
IPv6 Address Allocation Policies & Procedures Champika Wijayatunga, APNIC 1 st ASEAN IPv6 Summit Oct 20-22, 2003 – Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
APNIC 33 AMM Policy SIG Report Andy Linton, Policy SIG Chair Thursday 2 March 2012.
IPv6 Interim Policy Draft RIPE 42 Amsterdam, The Netherlands 1 May 2002.
IPv4 Addresses. Internet Protocol: Which version? There are currently two versions of the Internet Protocol in use for the Internet IPv4 (IP Version 4)
1 IPv6 Address Space Management Report of IPv6 Registry Simulation Policy SIG 1 Sept 2004 APNIC18, Nadi, Fiji Geoff Huston.
A S I A P A C I F I C N E T W O R K I N F O R M A T I O N C E N T R E Internet Registry allocation and assignment Policies.
Skeeve Stevens APNIC 29, Kuala Lumpur Alternative criteria for subsequent IPv6 allocations Prop-083v002.
Policy implementation and document status report Address Policy SIG APNIC 15, Taipei, Taiwan 27 February 2003.
Address Policy SIG, APNIC Policy meeting, February 27th, 2003 (1) IPv6 Policy in action Feedback from other RIR communities David Kessens Chairperson RIPE.
1 APNIC allocation and policy update JPNIC OPM July 17, Tokyo, Japan Guangliang Pan.
A proposal to lower the IPv4 minimum allocation size and initial criteria in the AP region prop-014-v001 Policy SIG APNIC17/APRICOT 2004 Feb
Policy Proposal to amend ARIN IPv6 assignment and utilization requirements ARIN XVI Los Angeles October 2005.
Prop-080: Removal of IPv4 Prefix Exchange Policy Guangliang Pan Resource Services Manager, APNIC.
Developing IPv6 Address Guidelines Izumi Okutani Japan Network Information Center Address Policy SIG Aug 2003, Seoul.
A proposal for an APNIC document editorial policy (prop-002-v001) Address Policy SIG APNIC 16, Seoul, Korea 21 August 2003.
ARIN Change Utilization Requirements from last-allocation to total-aggregate.
JPNIC Open Policy Meeting Update Yuka Suzuki IP Department Japan Network Information Center (JPNIC) NIR Meeting Aug. 21st, 2003.
Copyright (c) 2006 Japan Network Information Center Survey results in JP on IPv6 assignment size Izumi Okutani Japan Network Information Center (JPNIC)
Skeeve Stevens APNIC 31, Hong Kong Alternative criteria for subsequent IPv6 allocations Prop-083v003.
Overview of Policy Proposals Policy SIG Wednesday 31 August 2011.
APNIC 32 AMM Policy SIG Report Andy Linton Thursday 1 September 2011.
Rework of IPv6 Assignment Criteria Draft Policy
IPv4 IXP Address Policy APNIC Policy SIG Meeting Taipei, August 2001 Philip Smith.
17 th APNIC Open Policy Meeting APNIC IPv6 Address Guidelines Akira Nakagawa )/ POWEREDCOM Billy MH Cheon / KRNIC Toshiyuki.
Prop-073 Automatic allocation/assignment of IPv6 Terry Manderson Andy Linton.
1 IANA global IPv6 allocation policy [prop-005-v002] Policy SIG 1 Sept 2004 APNIC18, Nadi, Fiji.
A proposal for changing IPv6 per address fee Izumi Okutani Japan Network Information Center NIR 18, Fiji 31 August – 3 September, 2004.
Global IPv6 Address Interim Policy Draft Open Issues and Discussion Summary Address Policy SIG / 13 th APNIC Meeting Kosuke Ito Global IPv6 Interim Policy.
Advisory Council Shepherds: David Farmer & Chris Grundemann Global Policy for post exhaustion IPv4 allocation mechanisms by the IANA.
Policy SIG Report APNIC AGM Friday 29 August 2008 Christchurch, New Zealand 1.
1 IPv6 Allocation and Policy Update Global IPv6 Summit in China 2007 April 12, 2007 Guangliang Pan.
1 HD Ratio for IPv4 RIPE 48 May 2004 Amsterdam. 2 Current status APNIC Informational presentation at APNIC 16 Well supported, pending presentation at.
Copyright (c) 2002 Japan Network Information Center Proposal for IPv6 Policy for Essential Infrastructure in the AP region Izumi Okutani IP Address Section.
1 APNIC Open Address Policy Meeting Special Interest Group Session March 2nd, Korea, Seoul.
Policy SIG report AMM, APNIC 27 Manila, Philippines.
2002網際網路趨勢研討會IPv6 Tutorial
A proposal to deprecate ip6.int reverse DNS service in APNIC
IPv4 Addresses.
Regional Internet Registries
A Coordinated Proposal Regional Internet Registries
IPv6 Subsequent Allocation
IPv6 Address Space Management Report of IPv6 Registry Simulation
Prop-093: Reducing the minimum delegation size for the final /8
A Proposal for IPv4 Essential Infrastructure
Downstream Allocations by LIRs A Proposal
Joint IPv6 Forum/IPv6 SIG APNIC 15, Taipei, Taiwan 26 February 2003
Requiring aggregation for IPv6 subsequent allocations
IPv6 Address Space Management Report of IPv6 Registry Simulation
Policy SIG 8 Sep 2005 APNIC20, Hanoi, Vietnam Save Vocea
Policy SIG Thursday 26 February Manila, Philippines
Randy Bush & Philip Smith
IPv6 distribution and policy update
Overview of policy proposals
IPv6 Address Space Management A follow up to RIPE-261
Status Report on Policy Implementation at the APNIC Secretariat
IPv6 Policy Update ~ APNIC community ~
Removing aggregation criteria for IPv6 initial allocations
Presentation transcript:

1 Application of the HD ratio to IPv4 [prop-020-v001] Policy SIG 1 Sept 2004 APNIC18, Nadi, Fiji

2 Document history APNIC16 ‘informational’ presentation Idea favourably supported Presentation ‘world tour’ Considered at RIPE, ARIN and LACNIC meetings (more later) Submitted as a ‘proposal’ Posted to sig-policy mailing list on 4 Aug policy/archive/2004/08/msg00001.htmlhttp:// policy/archive/2004/08/msg00001.html

3 What is the proposal? Defining the threshold for requesting subsequent allocations Replace fixed 80% measure of utilisation with a variable % measure Motivation To apply a fairer and more just measure of utilisation

4 Current situation IPv4 policy Fixed 80% utilisation requirement Once 80% is sub-allocated or assigned, LIR can request additional block Same 80% threshold for all address allocations Regardless of size IPv6 policy Variable % utilisation requirement Different % threshold for different sized address allocations Recognises utilisation efficiency is related to size of block Larger address allocation, lower utilisation threshold

5 Problem statement Feedback to Secretariat Larger LIRs have difficulty in meeting 80% Unlike IPv6, no allowance for hierarchy in managing network addresses “One size fits all” approach is unfair

6 Basis of proposal There is a relationship between the size of a network and the administrative complexity of managing address space of the network As a network grows the diversity and complexity in service types and product offerings increases

7 More ‘efficient’ with less hierarchy RIR ISP … Customers and Infrastructure

8 ‘Efficiency’ loss through hierarchy RIR ISP … “Internal” Hierarchy Customers and Infrastructure Deeper hierarchy = lower efficiency Regions/POPs Services

9 Utilisation ‘efficiency’ Address management “efficiency” decreases as network becomes more hierarchical 80% at 3 levels of hierarchy is 51.2% overall With a fixed utilisation we assume 100% efficiency at lower levels Proportion of address “padding” increases with more hierarchy Tends to occur in larger networks Greater diversity of services and infrastructure

10 Proposes use of Host-Density ratio Measures utilisation in hierarchically managed address space An HD-ratio value corresponds to a % utilisation % utilisation decreases as the size of the address space grows The HD-ratio has been adopted for IPv6 RFC 3194

11 Selection of the HD ratio value Size range (prefix) Depth (n) Utilisation (0.80*n) HD ratio (calculated) /24 to /20180%.960 to.973 /20 to / %.961 to.970 /16 to /12264%.960 to.968 /12 to / %.960 to.966 /8 to / %.960 to.966

12 Proposed flexible utilisation 80% rule /21 minimum allocation

13 Proposal summary Proposes a realistic measure of ‘utilisation’ Recognises larger networks have greater diversity and network hierarchy Uses a simple lookup table No need to do calculations APNIC secretariat will develop tools Benefit Fairer system Amends current penalty applied to larger networks

14 Feedback received on ML Why not lower the utilisation threshold instead – say 70% Unnecessarily lenient with smaller network and still may not accommodate need for larger networks HD ratio is the wrong measure What is the “best fit” to gradual decrease in “efficiency”? Linear ‘fit’ does not accept argument of overhead in hierarchy Concern about impact to utilisation Use more conservative HD ratio value Smaller networks also have difficulty?

15 Impact on NIRs NIRs expected to conduct an OPM with a view to a consistent policy The time-frame for implementation at discretion of the NIR

16 Status in other regions ARIN XII Similar proposal raised and discussed Proposal abandoned as “too complex” LACNIC VI Presented by APNIC staff as informational only RIPE 48 Presented by APNIC staff as informational only

17 Thank you! Questions?

18 Proposal summary Proposes a realistic measure of ‘utilisation’ Recognises larger networks have greater product diversity and network hierarchy Uses a simple lookup table No need to do calculations APNIC secretariat will develop tools Benefit Fairer system Amends current penalty applied to larger networks