[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 ]