[address-policy-wg] last Call: Policy proposal #beta HD rati o policy proposal
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] last Call: Policy proposal #beta HD rati o policy proposal
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] last Call: Policy proposal #beta HD rati o policy proposal
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Hans Petter Holen
hpholen at tiscali.no
Sun Jul 10 15:10:43 CEST 2005
Hi Karsten, The responses I have seen to the list in favour of the HD ratio to the address-policy mailinglist arefrom * alain.bidron at francetelecom.com * kelaidi at ote.gr * EricS at t-com.net * groeskens at bluewin.ch * debecker at etno.be (on behalf or ETNO in September 2004) From re-reading the entire discussion I see that there has been some discussion on elements that could be interpreted as beeing oppsoed to the proposal as you state - could I ask for clearification from all involved during last call on this so I do not have to interpret language amd make wrong judgement of statements to the list ? As to the procedural point you are quite right that in order to stop this proposal - you need to state - as you did - that you do not support this policy an preferably why. Best Regards, Hans Petter Holen Address Policy WG Chair >Hello Hans Petter and al, > >I am AGAINST the proposal. > >I would like Alain to better explain his need for better IP >address management. He is the only voice I have seen *for* >the proposal. Nobody is supporting Alain, instead Iljitsch >has brought profound comments *against*, and there were some >cynic comments - also *against*. > >>From my point of view, I would like to see the current policy >remain in place, because with IPv4 we much more have a conservation >than an aggregation goal (or an internal aggregation need) >Large LIRs already receive /10s and I cannot see the proposal >will have "some limited impact" on address consumption. If >giant LIRs will only be mandated to occupy 52% instead of 80% of >their v4-IPs (I have done this calculation for DTAG and FT), this >is in my view going to cut our resources significantly. > >So, does the new PDP request a counter proposal to maintain >current policy, I guess no, just enough people have to say >no. Also, people in support of the proposal please raise your >hands. > >regards Karsten >eu.lambdanet > > > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Hans Petter Holen [mailto:hpholen at tiscali.no] >>Sent: Friday, July 01, 2005 12:37 AM >>Cc: address-policy-wg at ripe.net >>Subject: [address-policy-wg] last Call: Policy proposal #beta HD ratio >>policy proposal >> >> >>Hans Petter Holen wrote: >>Following the discussion on the mailinglist prior to and >>after posting >>the formal proposal I have seen no proposals to modify the >>proposal and >>would like to move the proposal into the conclustion phase in >>the policy >>development process http://www.ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/pdp.html >> >>Last cal will end at July 15th. >> >>Best Regards >> >>Hans Petter Holen >>WG Chair >> >> >> >>>Thanks Alain, >>>I'll as the new PDP is not in operation yet, I'll add this >>> >>> >>to my list >> >> >>>as #beta v1 >>> >>>I propose that we enter into the Discussion phase for 4 weeks from >>>date until April 4. >>> >>>-hph >>> >>>BIDRON Alain ROSI/DAS wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>Dear Colleagues >>>>Referring to the minutes of the last RIPE Policy Working Group >>>>meeting and to the action list as updated during that >>>> >>>> >>meeting, I have >> >> >>>>to make a formal proposal on use of HD ratio for IPV4. >>>>Here is this policy proposal. >>>>In order to be consistent with the PDP Draft proposal >>>> >>>> >>coming from Rob >> >> >>>>Blokzijl I have used the template provided in the new PDP proposal. >>>>Best regards. >>>>Alain >>>> >>>> >>>>_________________________________________________________ >>>>1. Policy Proposal Name: IPv4-HD-Ratio >>>>2. Author >>>>a. name: Alain Bidron >>>>b. e-mail: alain.bidron at francetelecom.com >>>>c. telephone: +33 1 44 44 27 75 >>>>d. organisation: France Telecom >>>>3. Proposal Version: V0 >>>>4. Submission Date: 02/02/2005 >>>>5. Suggested WG for discussion and publication: Address Policy WG >>>>6. Proposal type: modify >>>>7. Policy term: permanent >>>>8. Summary of proposal: Internet address space is managed >>>>hierarchically: >>>>- IANA allocates space to Regional Internet Registries (RIRs). >>>>- RIRs allocate space to Local Internet Registries (LIRs). >>>>- LIRs assign space to End Users. >>>> >>>>At each level, some address space may be reserved for future >>>>expansion and/or efficient aggregation. As more >>>> >>>> >>hierarchical levels >> >> >>>>are introduced, the overall efficiency of the address space usage >>>>decreases. >>>> >>>>The HD ratio (Host-Density ratio) is a way to measure >>>> >>>> >>address space >> >> >>>>usage [RFC 3194]. The HD ratio value can relate to a percentage of >>>>usage, which decreases as the amount of address space grows. This >>>>allows for the decreasing efficiency that occurs with more >>>>hierarchical levels. >>>> >>>>The HD ratio is currently used to measure IPv6 address space usage >>>>[ipv6-address-policy]. The IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment >>>>Policy considers a block of IPv6 address space to be >>>> >>>> >>‘used’ when its >> >> >>>>HD ratio reaches 0.80. This is a manageable figure >>>> >>>> >>("values of 80% or >> >> >>>>less correspond to comfortable trade-offs between pain and >>>>efficiency" [RFC 3194]). >>>> >>>>This document proposes using the HD ratio to measure IPv4 >>>> >>>> >>usage. The >> >> >>>>proposed value of the HD ratio for IPv4 is 0.96. >>>> >>>>9. Policy text: >>>>a. Current: "An LIR may receive an additional allocation >>>> >>>> >>when about >> >> >>>>eighty percent (80%) of all the address space currently >>>> >>>> >>allocated to >> >> >>>>it is used in valid assignments or sub-allocations." >>>>b. New: "An LIR may receive an additional allocation when >>>> >>>> >>its total >> >> >>>>allocated address space usage meets the HD-Ratio value of 0.96." >>>> >>>>10. Rationale: >>>> >>>>a. Background >>>>The current document, “IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment >>>>Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region” [ipv4-address-policy], >>>>considers a block of IPv4 addresses to be ‘used’ when 80% of the >>>>addresses within the block have been sub-allocated or >>>> >>>> >>assigned. This >> >> >>>>is applied to all address blocks, regardless of size. >>>>Current policies assume a hierarchical system of address space >>>>delegation. However, they do not make any allowance for >>>> >>>> >>hierarchical >> >> >>>>management within allocated address space. For LIRs in >>>> >>>> >>particular, a >> >> >>>>hierarchical approach is often required for assignment of address >>>>space to service elements such as customer networks, individual >>>>Points of Presence (PoPs), regionalised topologies, and >>>> >>>> >>even distinct >> >> >>>>ISP products. Small network infrastructures may require simple >>>>hierarchies, but large infrastructures can require several >>>> >>>> >>levels of >> >> >>>>address space subdivision. These levels of hierarchy are not >>>>recognised by the current policy framework and are highly >>>> >>>> >>restricted >> >> >>>>by the "80% rule". As a result, managing large blocks is often >>>>difficult, requiring large internal routing tables and/or frequent >>>>renumbering of internal address blocks. >>>> >>>>One of the goals of the RIR system is to avoid unnecessary >>>> >>>> >>depletion >> >> >>>>of IPv4 address space. However, address management >>>> >>>> >>policies must also >> >> >>>>be practical in terms of how much management overhead they cause. >>>>When large amounts of address space are involved, the "80% >>>> >>>> >>rule" can >> >> >>>>result in more work for an LIR. >>>> >>>>Basing usage on the HD ratio should lead to equal levels of >>>>management overhead across the board, rather than penalising the >>>>holders of large address blocks. >>>> >>>>b.Impact >>>>To see a rough estimation of the immediate impact of this >>>> >>>> >>proposal, >> >> >>>>an HD Ratio value of 0.96 was applied to the average amount of >>>>address space held by an LIR in the RIPE NCC Service Region. This >>>>showed that on average, LIRs would qualify for an additional >>>>allocation block when they have assigned or sub-allocated >>>> >>>> >>about 59% >> >> >>>>of their allocated address space. >>>> >>>>c.Arguments supporting the proposal. >>>>This proposal fairly takes into account addressing >>>> >>>> >>hierarchies used >> >> >>>>in large and extra-large registries and introduces a >>>> >>>> >>useful level of >> >> >>>>flexibility for those registries >>>>The local Internet registries using the 80% criteria may >>>> >>>> >>continue to >> >> >>>>do so and will not be impacted by the new policy. >>>>The RIPE NCC will provide support to minimise complicated >>>>calculations or administrative burden to LIRs. >>>> >>>>d. Arguments opposing the proposal. >>>>This proposal will have some limited impact on IPV4 >>>> >>>> >>address consumption. >> >> >>>> >>>> >>>>Appendix A. The HD ratio >>>> >>>> The HD ratio is calculated as follows [RFC 3194]: >>>> >>>> HD = log(U)/log(S) >>>> >>>> Where: >>>> >>>> S is the size of the address block concerned, and >>>> >>>> >> U is >> >> >>>>the number of addresses used. >>>> >>>>Note: The current IPv4 policy considers addresses to be >>>> >>>> >>‘used’ once >> >> >>>>they are assigned or sub-allocated by the LIR. >>>>Appendix B. Selection of HD ratio value >>>> >>>>We should decide an appropriate HD ratio value on a >>>> >>>> >>rational basis. >> >> >>>>To do this, we make certain assumptions about the number >>>> >>>> >>of "hidden" >> >> >>>>hierarchical levels involved in managing address blocks of various >>>>sizes. If we assume there is 80% usage at each level, we >>>> >>>> >>can easily >> >> >>>>calculate the overall usage. >>>> >>>>The following table proposes a set of hierarchical levels which we >>>>can reasonably expect within different amounts of address >>>> >>>> >>space. If a >> >> >>>>usage of 80% is achieved at each hierarchical level, then >>>> >>>> >>the overall >> >> >>>>usage will be (0.80 to the power of "n"). It is then possible to >>>>calculate HD ratio values from this value. >>>> >>>> Size range Level Utilisation HD ratio >>>> (prefix) (n) (0.80**n) (calculated) >>>> /24 to /20 1 80% >>>> >>>> >> .960 to .973 >> >> >>>> /20 to /16 1.5 72% >>>> >>>> >>.961 to .970 >> >> >>>> /16 to /12 2 64% >>>> >>>> >>.960 to .968 >> >> >>>> /12 to /8 2.5 57.2% >>>> >>>> >>.960 to .966 >> >> >>>> /8 to /4 3 51.20% >>>> >>>> >>.960 to .966 >> >> >>>> The levels of hierarchy listed above are based on assumptions >>>>about the likely size and structure of LIRs holding >>>> >>>> >>address blocks of >> >> >>>>these sizes. A reasonable HD ratio value may be 0.96 (a >>>> >>>> >>round figure >> >> >>>>which occurs within most of these ranges) from the table >>>> >>>> >>above. The >> >> >>>>following table gives the usage requirements for IPv4 >>>> >>>> >>address blocks >> >> >>>>from /24 to /8 for this value. >>>> >>>> IPv4 Addresses Addresses >>>> >>>> >> Util% >> >> >>>> prefix total used >>>> 24 256 >>>> >>>> >>205 >> >> >>>>80.11% >>>> 23 512 399 >>>> >>>> >> 77.92% >> >> >>>> 22 1024 776 >>>> >>>> >> 75.79% >> >> >>>> 21 2048 1510 >>>> >>>> >> 73.71% >> >> >>>> 20 4096 2937 >>>> >>>> >> 71.70% >> >> >>>> 19 8192 5713 >>>> >>>> >> 69.74% >> >> >>>> 18 16384 11113 >>>> >>>> >> 67.83% >> >> >>>> 17 32768 21619 >>>> >>>> >> 65.98% >> >> >>>> 16 65536 42055 >>>> >>>> >> 64.17% >> >> >>>> 15 131072 81811 >>>> >>>> >> 62.42% >> >> >>>> 14 262144 159147 >>>> >>>> >> 60.71% >> >> >>>> 13 524288 309590 >>>> >>>> >> 59.05% >> >> >>>> 12 1048576 602249 >>>> >>>> >> 57.43% >> >> >>>> 11 2097152 1171560 >>>> >>>> >> 55.86% >> >> >>>> 10 4194304 2279048 >>>> >>>> >> 54.34% >> >> >>>> 9 8388608 4433455 >>>> >>>> >> 52.85% >> >> >>>> 8 16777216 8624444 >>>> >>>> >> 51.41% >> >> >>>>Note: This table provides values for CIDR blocks, but the same >>>>calculations can be made for non-CIDR blocks. >>>> >>>>As an example, an LIR holding a total amount of address >>>> >>>> >>space equal >> >> >>>>to a /16 would be able to receive more address space when they had >>>>sub-allocated or assigned 64.17% of that space; while an >>>> >>>> >>LIR holding >> >> >>>>a /9 would be able to receive more space when they had >>>> >>>> >>sub-allocated >> >> >>>>or assigned 52.85% of their address space. >>>> >>>>Appendix C. References >>>>[RFC 3194] "The Host-Density ratio for address assignment >>>> >>>> >>efficiency: An >> >> >>>> update on the H ratio", A. Durand, C.Huitema, November 2001. >>>>[ipv6-address-policy] RIPE NCC document: "IPv6 Address >>>> >>>> >>Allocation and >> >> >>>> Assignment Policy" >>>> >>>> >>http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ipv6policy.html >> >> >>>>[ipv4-address-policy] RIPE NCC document: "IPv4 Address >>>> >>>> >>Allocation and >> >> >>>> Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region" >>>>http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ipv4-policies.html >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >> >>
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] last Call: Policy proposal #beta HD rati o policy proposal
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] last Call: Policy proposal #beta HD rati o policy proposal
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]