From hph at oslo.net Wed Feb 1 19:57:48 2006 From: hph at oslo.net (Hans Petter Holen) Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2006 19:57:48 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: 2005-09 New Draft Document Published (IANA Policy for Allocation of IPv6 Blocks to RIRs) In-Reply-To: <20060130105903.252F72F583@herring.ripe.net> References: <20060130105903.252F72F583@herring.ripe.net> Message-ID: <43E104AC.4040805@oslo.net> RIPE NCC Policy Coordinator wrote: >PDP Number: 2005-09 >Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Policy for Allocation of IPv6 Blocks to Regional Internet Registries > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2005-09.html > >We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments to address-policy-wg at ripe.net before 27 February 2006. > > > Dear all, I have read the proposal carefully and to my best ability I have found the RIPE document to be identical to the proposed policy change. Please state as soon as possible if there are objections to this policy. As soon as the 27th February deadline has passed the porposal will go into last call and be judged for consensus. When RIPE has accepted this policy as the last of the 5 regions it will be forwarded to the ICANN Address Council to become global policy. Best Regards Hans Petter Holen From wilhelm at ripe.net Thu Feb 2 17:42:27 2006 From: wilhelm at ripe.net (Rene Wilhelm) Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2006 17:42:27 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] (2005-01) HD-ratio proposal In-Reply-To: Message from Michael.Dillon@btradianz.com of "Mon, 30 Jan 2006 15:22:18 GMT." Message-ID: <20060202164227.640A62F594@herring.ripe.net> >> Details of the analysis are available on our >> web site at: >> http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/comments/impact_of_hd.html > I think you gave out the wrong URL. All I can find at that > address is a brief summary. Where is the detailed analysis? The goal of the analysis was to estimate the overall effects of the proposed policy. As such we do not single out specific registries, but only publish what the total number of additionally allocated addresses is projected to be if policy 2005-01 had been adopted 3 years ago. The URL above lists those numbers and shows how the number of allocated addresses would have developed over time. The second half of the page describes how we arrived at those numbers, i.e. the model used and the assumptions behind it. As with all models dealing with IP consumption rates, there are uncertainties and there is no guarantee history would have unfolded as projected by the model. However, larger networks operators have stated that applying an HD-ratio is useful to them as it will help them add hierarchy to their networks. Since applying an HD-ratio will mean those networks are eligible for more address space and need to use less of an allocation before applying for a next one, address space consumption is likely to increase. The remaining pool of unallocated IPv4 addresses will thus last shorter. -- Rene =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Rene Wilhelm RIPE Network Coordination Centre Email: wilhelm at ripe.net Amsterdam, the Netherlands Phone: +31 20 535 4417 Fax: +31 20 535 4445 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= From laura at ripe.net Mon Feb 6 13:57:52 2006 From: laura at ripe.net (Laura Cobley) Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 13:57:52 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Updated RIPE Document available Message-ID: <20060206135752.2b2393e6.laura@ripe.net> [Apologies for duplicate e-mails.] Dear Colleagues, We are pleased to announce the publication of an updated RIPE Document. ripe-368 IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region. You can find this document at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ipv4-policies.html We have removed the references to African registries. This is in accordance with policy proposal 2005-05 "Proposal to Remove Special African Policies From RIPE Policy Documents". Best Regards, Laura Cobley Registration Services RIPE NCC From adrian at ripe.net Tue Feb 7 08:51:32 2006 From: adrian at ripe.net (RIPE NCC Policy Coordinator) Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2006 08:51:32 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2005-01 - Last Call for Comments (HD-ratio Proposal) Message-ID: <20060207075132.B63E52F598@herring.ripe.net> PDP Number: 2005-01 HD-ratio Proposal Dear Colleagues The proposal to change to RIPE Document ripe-324 is now at its final stage. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2005-1.html Please e-mail any final comments about this proposal to address-policy-wg at ripe.net before 7 March 2006. We will publish the new policy after this date if we receive no objections. Regards Adrian Bedford RIPE NCC From adrian at ripe.net Tue Feb 7 13:51:49 2006 From: adrian at ripe.net (RIPE NCC Policy Coordinator) Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2006 13:51:49 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2005-01 Last Call for Comments (HD-ration Proposal) Message-ID: <20060207125149.590212F598@herring.ripe.net> [apologies for duplicate e-mails] PDP Number: 2005-01 HD-ratio Proposal Dear Colleagues We have updated the proposal to change ripe-368 - "IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region". The update reflects the changes made when ripe-368 recently replaced ripe-324. We have also updated the draft RIPE Document to remove an additional reference to the 80% rule. You can find the updated draft RIPE Document at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/ipv4-policies-draft.html Regards Adrian Bedford RIPE NCC From gih at apnic.net Tue Feb 21 07:34:55 2006 From: gih at apnic.net (Geoff Huston) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 17:34:55 +1100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2005-01 - Last Call for Comments (HD-ratio Proposal) In-Reply-To: <20060207075132.B63E52F598@herring.ripe.net> References: <20060207075132.B63E52F598@herring.ripe.net> Message-ID: <8f5c68a40602202234v68f791ccidebcb1aba5d94be0@mail.gmail.com> Hi, I was wondering if it would help to look at the potential impact of this policy on IPv4 address consumption predictions. I have built a model of projection IPv4 address consumption based on continuity of current address allocation policies http://ipv4.potaroo.net, and it may be useful to look at the impact of using the HD ratio on this model. I'll try and get some results posted by the end of this week on a simulation of the effects of adoption of this policy proposal thanks, Geoff On 2/7/06, RIPE NCC Policy Coordinator wrote: > > PDP Number: 2005-01 > HD-ratio Proposal > > Dear Colleagues > > The proposal to change to RIPE Document ripe-324 is now at its final > stage. > > You can find the full proposal at: > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2005-1.html > > Please e-mail any final comments about this proposal to > address-policy-wg at ripe.net before 7 March 2006. > > We will publish the new policy after this date if we receive no > objections. > > Regards > > Adrian Bedford > RIPE NCC > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gih at apnic.net Wed Feb 22 09:44:06 2006 From: gih at apnic.net (Geoff Huston) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 19:44:06 +1100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2005-01 - Last Call for Comments (HD-ratio Proposal) In-Reply-To: <8f5c68a40602202234v68f791ccidebcb1aba5d94be0@mail.gmail.co m> References: <20060207075132.B63E52F598@herring.ripe.net> <8f5c68a40602202234v68f791ccidebcb1aba5d94be0@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.2.20060222193545.02be3c78@kahuna.telstra.net> Here is the promised report on the address consumption implications of the policy proposal 2005-1 (HD-Ratio Proposal) If there is any other aspect of implications of adoption of this proposal that folk may want investigated I'd be happy to see what I can do. Also if any part of this report is unclear I'd be happy to attempt to clarify further the process I've used here. I trust that this report is helpful in terms of assessing some of the impacts of the proposal. regards, Geoff Huston An Analysis of the Sensitivity of using the HD Ratio for IPv4 Address Allocations Geoff Huston V1.0 22 February 2005 This document describes the outcomes of an analytical process intended to describe the sensitivity of the use of HD Ratio metrics as the means of assessing address utilization efficiency, and the relation between the use of HD Ratio values and projected lifetimes of the unallocated IPv4 address pool. This document is a commentary on RIPE Policy Proposal 2005-1 1. Methodology -------------- The methodology used here uses only published RIR allocation data. The primary data source for RIPE NCC data is the delegated file: ftp://ftp.ripe.net/pub/stats/ripencc/delegated-ripencc-latest All IPv4 allocation records with an allocation date on or after 1-Jan-2000 are collected. The allocation sizes are rounded up to the next largest power of 2, or 256, which is the greatest. The relative proportion of each allocation size is also calculated. This is shown in the table below (Table 1). ---------------------------------------------------------------- Table 1 - RIPE NCC IPV4 Address Allocations (since 1-Jan-2000) Size Number Relative Cumulative Frequency Relative Frequency /24 2637 23.04 23.04 /23 1383 12.09 35.13 /22 934 8.16 43.29 /21 545 4.76 48.06 /20 2247 19.64 67.69 /19 1713 14.97 82.66 /18 784 6.85 89.51 /17 407 3.56 93.07 /16 499 4.36 97.43 /15 135 1.18 98.61 /14 75 0.66 99.27 /13 44 0.38 99.65 /12 21 0.18 99.83 /11 15 0.13 99.97 /10 4 0.03 100.00 ---------------------------------------------------------------- The assumption made here is that these allocations are made under a policy of a uniform 80% utilization efficiency. From this can be calculated the inferred maximum end use count for each prefix size (Table 2). ---------------------------------------------------------------- Table 2 - Inferred Maximum End Population Count for each Prefix Size under the uniform 80% efficiency policy /24 205 /23 410 /22 819 /21 1638 /20 3277 /19 6554 /18 13107 /17 26214 /16 52429 /15 104858 /14 209715 /13 419430 /12 838861 /11 1677722 /10 3355443 /9 6710886 /8 13421773 ---------------------------------------------------------------- The HD ratio is calculated by the function: HD = log(used)/log(addresses). This implies that the population can be inferred for any given prefix size using the equation: used = 10**(HD x log_base_10(addresses). The inferred maximum end use count for each prefix size using an HD Ratio value of 0.96 is shown below (Table 3). ---------------------------------------------------------------- Table 3 - Inferred Maximum End Population Count for each Prefix Size under an HD = 0.96 allocation policy /24 205 /23 399 /22 776 /21 1510 /20 2937 /19 5713 /18 11113 /17 21619 /16 42055 /15 81811 /14 159147 /13 309590 /12 602249 /11 1171560 /10 2279048 /9 4433455 /8 8624444 ---------------------------------------------------------------- The next step is to determine the relative impact on address consumption by changing from a uniform 80% utilization efficiency metric to one determined by an HD Ratio setting of 0.96. To do this a sequence of 10,000 allocations are simulated. with each allocation being in the range of a /24 to a /10 prefix. with a probability of any particular prefix being selected based on the relatively frequency distribution of Table 1. The inferred population lies between the maximum population of this prefix and that of the population of the next smaller prefix in Table 2. A random value is drawn from this population range (this is a uniform probability selection between the two extreme population values, so that any population value is equally likely to be selected). This population value is used as a lookup key into Table 3, and the next highest population count is used to determine the equivalent HD Ratio allocated prefix. In effect, this approach generates a series of demand populations that would generate the existing RIR allocation prefix distribution, and then uses this population set to generate a HD-Ratio- based set of allocations that would correspond to this population distribution. The total amount of allocated address space is calculated in each case, and the ratio of the two address pool sizes is recorded. This experiment has been repeated 1,000 times in order to determine a stable average value for the relative increase in address consumption corresponding to a change in the address allocation policies from uniform 80% to an HD Ratio of 0.96, assuming constant demand for addresses. This relative change in address demands can then be added into the IPv4 address consumption projection (see http://ipv4.potaroo.net). The change here is in the simulation of the address consumption model, where in the base model all RIR's are assumed to be operating a uniform address efficiency metric of a uniform 80% utilization target. The same exponential growth model in advertised address growth is used, but this model is augmented by the relative increase in address consumption as contributed by the HD Ratio allocation metric. The unadvertised address ratio is then derived from this higher advertised address count, and this, in turn, generates a more rapid overall address consumption model. The measure under investigation in this case is the change in predicted date of the exhaustion of the IANA unallocated address pool 2. Results --------- The relative distribution of allocated prefixes by the RIPE NCC using an HD Ratio of 0.96 as an allocation efficiency metric would be as shown in Table 4. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Table 4 - RIPE NCC IPV4 Address Allocations Size 2000-2006 HD Ratio Relative Relative Frequency Frequency /24 23.04 23.23 /23 12.09 11.37 /22 8.16 7.87 /21 4.76 4.85 /20 19.64 16.33 /19 14.97 15.21 /18 6.85 8.58 /17 3.56 4.39 /16 4.36 3.88 /15 1.18 2.39 /14 0.66 0.86 /13 0.38 0.50 /12 0.18 0.28 /11 0.13 0.15 /10 0.03 0.09 /9 0.00 0.02 /8 0.00 0.00 ---------------------------------------------------------------- From the simulations of registry allocations, the use of an HD Ratio of 0.96 for IPv4 address allocations made by the RIPE NCC is predicted to increase total address consumption by 46% over the existing flat 80% utilization allocation policy framework. The current prediction for the data of exhaustion of the IANA unallocated address pool is 12 January 2012, assuming, among other factors, a continued application of the constant 80% address utilization metric. If the RIPE NCC were to adopt an allocation policy of using an HD Ratio of 0.96 to access IPv4 address allocations, and no other changes were made to the mode, and no other RIRs were to adopt such a policy to use the HS Ratio as a utilization metric, then the impact on the predicted exhaustion date is an overall change in address consumption rates by approximately 17% (as the RIPE NCC is responsible for some 38% of all allocated IPv4 addresses), and a predicted unallocated IANA pool exhaustion date of 9 December 2010 under these conditions (or approximately 1 year earlier than the predictions using the current address allocation policy framework A related consideration is that of the adoption of such a policy proposal by all 5 RIRs. If this were the case, and the adoption of this policy was to be effective immediately, then the relative increase in overall address consumption for each RIR would be: Afrinic 39%, APNIC 47%, ARIN 46%, LACNIC 47%. The simulation of IPv4 address consumption under these conditions predicts that the IANA pool of unallocated addresses would be exhausted by 22 March 2010 (or approximately 2 years earlier than the predictions using the current address allocation policy framework). -------------------------------------------------- At 05:34 PM 21/02/2006, Geoff Huston wrote: >Hi, > >I was wondering if it would help to look at the potential impact of this policy on IPv4 address consumption predictions. I have built a model of projection IPv4 address consumption based on continuity of current address allocation policies http://ipv4.potaroo.net, and it may be useful to look at the impact of using the HD ratio on this model. I'll try and get some results posted by the end of this week on a simulation of the effects of adoption of this policy proposal > >thanks, > > Geoff > > > > >On 2/7/06, RIPE NCC Policy Coordinator <adrian at ripe.net> wrote: >PDP Number: 2005-01 >HD-ratio Proposal > >Dear Colleagues > >The proposal to change to RIPE Document ripe-324 is now at its final stage. > >You can find the full proposal at: > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2005-1.html > >Please e-mail any final comments about this proposal to address-policy-wg at ripe.net before 7 March 2006. > >We will publish the new policy after this date if we receive no objections. > >Regards > >Adrian Bedford >RIPE NCC > From randy at psg.com Wed Feb 22 18:00:43 2006 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 07:00:43 -1000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2005-01 - Last Call for Comments (HD-ratio Proposal) References: <20060207075132.B63E52F598@herring.ripe.net> <8f5c68a40602202234v68f791ccidebcb1aba5d94be0@mail.gmail.com> <6.2.0.14.2.20060222193545.02be3c78@kahuna.telstra.net> Message-ID: <17404.39099.516508.865556@roam.psg.com> > I trust that this report is helpful in terms of assessing some of the > impacts of the proposal. > > ... > > From the simulations of registry allocations, the use of an HD Ratio of > 0.96 for IPv4 address allocations made by the RIPE NCC is predicted to > increase total address consumption by 46% over the existing flat 80% > utilization allocation policy framework. YIKES!!!! and, aside from that, how was the play, mrs. lincoln? randy From gih at apnic.net Wed Feb 22 21:59:02 2006 From: gih at apnic.net (Geoff Huston) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 07:59:02 +1100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2005-01 - Last Call for Comments (HD-ratio Proposal) In-Reply-To: <17404.39099.516508.865556@roam.psg.com> References: <20060207075132.B63E52F598@herring.ripe.net> <8f5c68a40602202234v68f791ccidebcb1aba5d94be0@mail.gmail.com> <6.2.0.14.2.20060222193545.02be3c78@kahuna.telstra.net> <17404.39099.516508.865556@roam.psg.com> Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.2.20060223073930.02994048@kahuna.telstra.net> At 04:00 AM 23/02/2006, Randy Bush wrote: > > I trust that this report is helpful in terms of assessing some of the > > impacts of the proposal. > > > > ... > > > > From the simulations of registry allocations, the use of an HD Ratio of > > 0.96 for IPv4 address allocations made by the RIPE NCC is predicted to > > increase total address consumption by 46% over the existing flat 80% > > utilization allocation policy framework. > >YIKES!!!! > >and, aside from that, how was the play, mrs. lincoln? I was also surprised by this number when I first saw it in the output. Looking behind this 46% number, the outcome is a result of the amplified effects of the HD Ratio for large allocations. 50% of this increased address consumption is in allocations of /9 and /10 prefixes, which only account for 1% of all actual allocations, but 20% of the allocated addresses. The other effect is a shift from /16 to /15 allocations in this HDR regime - /16s and /15s together contribute a further 15% to this increased address consumption. Here's the table that shows the shifts when using the HD Ratio (fixed width font will help here) Prefix RIPE NCC Equivalent Allocations Allocations 2000-2006 0.96 HD (Relative %) (Relative %) /24 23.04 23.23 /23 12.09 11.37 /22 8.16 7.87 /21 4.76 4.85 /20 19.64 16.33 /19 14.97 15.21 /18 6.85 8.58 /17 3.56 4.39 /16 4.36 3.88 /15 1.18 2.39 /14 0.66 0.86 /13 0.38 0.5 /12 0.18 0.28 /11 0.13 0.15 /10 0.03 0.09 /9 0 0.02 /8 0 0 Power of Address Address Difference Relative Relative Relative 2 Span Span Difference Address Address Actual HDR Span Span Actual HDR 8 5898 5947 49 0% 0% 0% 9 6190 5821 -369 0% 0% 0% 10 8356 8059 -297 0% 0% 0% 11 9748 9933 184 0% 1% 0% 12 80445 66888 -13558 -2% 4% 2% 13 122634 124600 1966 0% 7% 5% 14 112230 140575 28344 3% 6% 5% 15 116654 143852 27197 3% 6% 5% 16 285737 254280 -31457 -4% 15% 9% 17 154665 313262 158597 19% 8% 12% 18 173015 225444 52429 6% 9% 8% 19 199229 262144 62915 7% 11% 10% 20 188744 293601 104858 12% 10% 11% 21 272630 314573 41943 5% 15% 12% 22 125829 377487 251658 30% 7% 14% 23 0 167772 167772 20% 0% 6% 24 0 0 0 0% 0% 0% Total 1862005.76 2714237.44 852231.68 From randy at psg.com Wed Feb 22 22:35:26 2006 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 11:35:26 -1000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2005-01 - Last Call for Comments (HD-ratio Proposal) References: <20060207075132.B63E52F598@herring.ripe.net> <8f5c68a40602202234v68f791ccidebcb1aba5d94be0@mail.gmail.com> <6.2.0.14.2.20060222193545.02be3c78@kahuna.telstra.net> <17404.39099.516508.865556@roam.psg.com> <6.2.0.14.2.20060223073930.02994048@kahuna.telstra.net> Message-ID: <17404.55582.11703.432906@roam.psg.com> > I was also surprised by this number when I first saw it in the output. > > Looking behind this 46% number, the outcome is a result of the amplified > effects of the HD Ratio for large allocations. 50% of this increased > address consumption is in allocations of /9 and /10 prefixes, which only > account for 1% of all actual allocations, but 20% of the allocated addresses. > > The other effect is a shift from /16 to /15 allocations in this HDR regime > - /16s and /15s together contribute a further 15% to this increased address > consumption. i.e., this is what the conservatives and smaller folk have been intuiting all along, the big players get more than a fair (as we think of it today) share and the small folk lose. grrrrrrrr. could we please add ppml at arin.net to the cc:s? thanks. randy From gih at apnic.net Wed Feb 22 22:29:30 2006 From: gih at apnic.net (Geoff Huston) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 08:29:30 +1100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2005-01 - Last Call for Comments (HD-ratio Proposal) In-Reply-To: <6.2.0.14.2.20060223073930.02994048@kahuna.telstra.net> References: <20060207075132.B63E52F598@herring.ripe.net> <8f5c68a40602202234v68f791ccidebcb1aba5d94be0@mail.gmail.com> <6.2.0.14.2.20060222193545.02be3c78@kahuna.telstra.net> <17404.39099.516508.865556@roam.psg.com> <6.2.0.14.2.20060223073930.02994048@kahuna.telstra.net> Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.2.20060223082517.02c138d8@kahuna.telstra.net> I should correct a typo in the note below. Under the HD scheme /9 and /10 allocation will account for 0.11% of the actual allocations, not 1% as I said below. This correction probably amplifies the comment that its the small number of large allocations that are critical in assessing the total impact of the HD Ratio framework. thanks, Geoff >I was also surprised by this number when I first saw it in the output. > >Looking behind this 46% number, the outcome is a result of the amplified >effects of the HD Ratio for large allocations. 50% of this increased >address consumption is in allocations of /9 and /10 prefixes, which only >account for 1% of all actual allocations, but 20% of the allocated addresses. > >The other effect is a shift from /16 to /15 allocations in this HDR regime >- /16s and /15s together contribute a further 15% to this increased >address consumption. From wilhelm at ripe.net Thu Feb 23 02:43:47 2006 From: wilhelm at ripe.net (Rene Wilhelm) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 02:43:47 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2005-01 - Last Call for Comments (HD-ratio Proposal) In-Reply-To: Message from Geoff Huston of "Thu, 23 Feb 2006 07:59:02 +1100." <6.2.0.14.2.20060223073930.02994048@kahuna.telstra.net> Message-ID: <20060223014347.437182F593@herring.ripe.net> Hi Geoff, > I was also surprised by this number [46%] when I first saw it in the output. Your number is higher, but the analysis I did also showed HD ratio could have a significant impact on the address space consumption. (http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/comments/impact_of_hd.html posted on this list some weeks ago) Looking at all invidual allocations done by RIPE NCC between 2003 and 2006, we modelled the observed growth to a policy which used HDR 0.96 instead of 80% utilisation as the criterium for an LIR to be eligible to receive an additional allocation. Starting 1/1/2003 and stepping through time the simulation thus determined the address space held by each LIR on a day by day basis. By 1/1/2006 this resulted in some 60 million (about 30% of the total) more addresses allocated compared to what we actually had handed out under the 80% rule. Reading your report, I believe one of the reasons our numbers differ is that you are simulating 10,000 allocations; my analysis only looked at the 5,121 allocations done by RIPE NCC in 2003-2006. Since the effects of HD ratio are progressive, the more allocations you simulate, the higher the relative increase in address space consumption becomes. > This experiment has been repeated 1,000 times in order to determine a > stable average value for the relative increase in address consumption > corresponding to a change in the address allocation policies from uniform > 80% to an HD Ratio of 0.96, assuming constant demand for addresses. To get a feeling of how stable your average is, could you indicate what the variation, the standard deviation in these 1,000 repeats is? i.e. did all 1000 give you a number close to 46% or were they spread out a lot? > A related consideration is that of the adoption of such a policy proposal > by all 5 RIRs. >From http://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/proposal_archive.html I understand ARIN already abandoned two proposals to use HD ratio for IPv4 allocations (nrs. 2004-2 and 2003-10). Regards, -- Rene =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Rene Wilhelm RIPE Network Coordination Centre Email: wilhelm at ripe.net Amsterdam, the Netherlands Phone: +31 20 535 4417 Fax: +31 20 535 4445 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= From alh-ietf at tndh.net Thu Feb 23 02:55:33 2006 From: alh-ietf at tndh.net (Tony Hain) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 17:55:33 -0800 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2005-01 - Last Call for Comments (HD-ratio Proposal) In-Reply-To: <20060223014347.437182F593@herring.ripe.net> Message-ID: <02de01c6381c$3b972a00$d247190a@tndh.net> Have either of you run the simulations with other HDR values? Would .97 make a significant difference? > -----Original Message----- > From: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg- > admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Rene Wilhelm > Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 5:44 PM > To: Geoff Huston > Cc: Randy Bush; address-policy-wg at ripe.net > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2005-01 - Last Call for Comments (HD- > ratio Proposal) > > > Hi Geoff, > > > I was also surprised by this number [46%] when I first saw it in the > output. > > Your number is higher, but the analysis I did also showed HD ratio could > have a significant impact on the address space consumption. > (http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/comments/impact_of_hd.html > posted on this list some weeks ago) > > Looking at all invidual allocations done by RIPE NCC between 2003 and > 2006, > we modelled the observed growth to a policy which used HDR 0.96 instead > of 80% utilisation as the criterium for an LIR to be eligible to receive > an > additional allocation. Starting 1/1/2003 and stepping through time the > simulation thus determined the address space held by each LIR on a day by > day basis. By 1/1/2006 this resulted in some 60 million (about 30% of > the total) more addresses allocated compared to what we actually had > handed out under the 80% rule. > > Reading your report, I believe one of the reasons our numbers differ > is that you are simulating 10,000 allocations; my analysis only looked at > the 5,121 allocations done by RIPE NCC in 2003-2006. Since the effects of > HD ratio are progressive, the more allocations you simulate, the higher > the > relative increase in address space consumption becomes. > > > > This experiment has been repeated 1,000 times in order to determine a > > stable average value for the relative increase in address consumption > > corresponding to a change in the address allocation policies from > uniform > > 80% to an HD Ratio of 0.96, assuming constant demand for addresses. > > To get a feeling of how stable your average is, could you indicate > what the variation, the standard deviation in these 1,000 repeats is? > i.e. did all 1000 give you a number close to 46% or were they > spread out a lot? > > > > A related consideration is that of the adoption of such a policy > proposal > > by all 5 RIRs. > > From http://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/proposal_archive.html > I understand ARIN already abandoned two proposals to use HD ratio for > IPv4 allocations (nrs. 2004-2 and 2003-10). > > Regards, > > -- Rene > > > > =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > =-= > Rene Wilhelm RIPE Network Coordination Centre > Email: wilhelm at ripe.net Amsterdam, the Netherlands > Phone: +31 20 535 4417 Fax: +31 20 535 4445 > =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > =-= From wilhelm at ripe.net Thu Feb 23 03:18:23 2006 From: wilhelm at ripe.net (Rene Wilhelm) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 03:18:23 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2005-01 - Last Call for Comments (HD-ratio Proposal) In-Reply-To: Message from "Tony Hain" of "Wed, 22 Feb 2006 17:55:33 PST." <02de01c6381c$3b972a00$d247190a@tndh.net> Message-ID: <20060223021823.9A2902F593@herring.ripe.net> > Have either of you run the simulations with other HDR values? Would .97 make > a significant difference? I also did 0.966, the value proposed in the RIPE48 meeting (may 2004). With an HD ratio of 0.966 the projected increase for the historic RIPE NCC allocations is 22% on 1/1/2006. >> my analysis only looked at the 5,121 allocations done by RIPE NCC >> in 2003-2006. Ooops, wrong number slipped in. It's not 5,121 but 2,939 allocations done by the NCC between 1/1/2003 and 1/1/2006. -- Rene From gih at apnic.net Thu Feb 23 03:50:02 2006 From: gih at apnic.net (Geoff Huston) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 13:50:02 +1100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2005-01 - Last Call for Comments (HD-ratio Proposal) In-Reply-To: <20060223014347.437182F593@herring.ripe.net> References: <20060223014347.437182F593@herring.ripe.net> Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.2.20060223133708.02e3f6a0@kahuna.telstra.net> Hi Rene, The results for these 1,000 experiments (with each experiment using 10,000 allocations as described in the original note) is a ratio of the address consumption using HD Ratio to that of a flat 80% is 1.4585421463303 with a Mean Standard Deviation = 0.0337090355213951 regards, Geoff At 12:43 PM 23/02/2006, Rene Wilhelm wrote: > > This experiment has been repeated 1,000 times in order to determine a > > stable average value for the relative increase in address consumption > > corresponding to a change in the address allocation policies from uniform > > 80% to an HD Ratio of 0.96, assuming constant demand for addresses. > >To get a feeling of how stable your average is, could you indicate >what the variation, the standard deviation in these 1,000 repeats is? >i.e. did all 1000 give you a number close to 46% or were they >spread out a lot? From gih at apnic.net Thu Feb 23 04:04:02 2006 From: gih at apnic.net (Geoff Huston) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 14:04:02 +1100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2005-01 - Last Call for Comments (HD-ratio Proposal) In-Reply-To: <02de01c6381c$3b972a00$d247190a@tndh.net> References: <20060223014347.437182F593@herring.ripe.net> <02de01c6381c$3b972a00$d247190a@tndh.net> Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.2.20060223135555.02e56f38@kahuna.telstra.net> At 12:55 PM 23/02/2006, Tony Hain wrote: >Have either of you run the simulations with other HDR values? Would .97 make >a significant difference? Good question... Heres a table of the ratio of total address allocations using the RIPE NCC data, comparing the address consumption under the current 80% utilization criteria with a number of values for an HD Ratio criteria. I've included the mean standard deviation to give you a sense of the stability of these results. (Again, the technique here is to conduct an "experiment" consisting of 1000 separate simulations of a batch of 10,000 allocations, and the "result" is the ratio of the address space allocated under an HD Ratio framework, as compared to the same simulated end use populations being served under the current fixed 80% criteria) (fixed width font may help here) HD Ratio Ratio Mean Std Dev 0.98 1.04868 0.02285 0.97 1.25899 0.03363 0.96 1.45854 0.03371 0.95 1.63073 0.02848 0.94 1.78332 0.01859 regards, Geoff From randy at psg.com Thu Feb 23 04:07:25 2006 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 17:07:25 -1000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2005-01 - Last Call for Comments (HD-ratio Proposal) References: <20060223014347.437182F593@herring.ripe.net> <02de01c6381c$3b972a00$d247190a@tndh.net> <6.2.0.14.2.20060223135555.02e56f38@kahuna.telstra.net> Message-ID: <17405.9965.791554.900320@roam.psg.com> > HD Ratio Ratio Mean Std Dev > 0.98 1.04868 0.02285 > 0.97 1.25899 0.03363 > 0.96 1.45854 0.03371 > 0.95 1.63073 0.02848 > 0.94 1.78332 0.01859 and what does .98 do to the flight ceiling of small folk? randy From gih at apnic.net Thu Feb 23 04:43:47 2006 From: gih at apnic.net (Geoff Huston) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 14:43:47 +1100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2005-01 - Last Call for Comments (HD-ratio Proposal) In-Reply-To: <17405.9965.791554.900320@roam.psg.com> References: <20060223014347.437182F593@herring.ripe.net> <02de01c6381c$3b972a00$d247190a@tndh.net> <6.2.0.14.2.20060223135555.02e56f38@kahuna.telstra.net> <17405.9965.791554.900320@roam.psg.com> Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.2.20060223142502.02c90330@kahuna.telstra.net> At 02:07 PM 23/02/2006, Randy Bush wrote: > > HD Ratio Ratio Mean Std Dev > > 0.98 1.04868 0.02285 > > 0.97 1.25899 0.03363 > > 0.96 1.45854 0.03371 > > 0.95 1.63073 0.02848 > > 0.94 1.78332 0.01859 > >and what does .98 do to the flight ceiling of small folk? > >randy I'll respond to this question, but in the interests of not wishing to overwhelming a whole swag of mailing lists I'll make this my last posting on this topic today. An HD Ratio of 0.98 imposes a higher efficiency target than the existing 80% rate for all prefix sizes smaller than a /16, and lower than 80% for allocations greater than a /16 (e.g. an HD Ratio of 0.98 implies an efficiency threshold of 72% for a /9 allocation.) As an example, if you had an end use population of between 3,277 and 6,554 numbered devices you would qualify for a /19 allocation under an 80% rule, while under an HD Ratio of 0.98 the end use population is between 3,468 and 6,841, corresponding to a required address efficiency level of 84% on this address block in order to qualify for a further address allocation. The use of an HD Ratio of 0.96 corresponds to an 80% efficiency level for a /24, so that 0.96 is no worse than 80% for all allocations, whereas HD Ratios greater than 0.96 impose an efficiency constraint greater than 80% on the smaller address blocks (/16 through to /24) - this can be easily modelled on any spreadsheet of course. regards, Geoff From alh-ietf at tndh.net Thu Feb 23 17:14:47 2006 From: alh-ietf at tndh.net (Tony Hain) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 08:14:47 -0800 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2005-01 - Last Call for Comments (HD-ratio Proposal) In-Reply-To: <20060223021823.9A2902F593@herring.ripe.net> Message-ID: <039601c63894$447c7440$d247190a@tndh.net> Rene Wilhelm wrote: > > Have either of you run the simulations with other HDR values? Would .97 > make > > a significant difference? > > I also did 0.966, the value proposed in the RIPE48 meeting (may 2004). > > With an HD ratio of 0.966 the projected increase for the historic > RIPE NCC allocations is 22% on 1/1/2006. Thanks. Maybe I missed the point, but isn't the goal to define the HD ratio that is equivalent to the historical allocation rates? As I recall the .96 value was a rough fit from some simple calculations, so there is nothing that ties us to that. I realize it is probably a trial and error effort, but now that the models are built it should just be processing time to run through some numbers until the rate aligns. Tony From randy at psg.com Thu Feb 23 17:23:43 2006 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 06:23:43 -1000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2005-01 - Last Call for Comments (HD-ratio Proposal) References: <20060223021823.9A2902F593@herring.ripe.net> <039601c63894$447c7440$d247190a@tndh.net> Message-ID: <17405.57743.543975.98705@roam.psg.com> > Thanks. Maybe I missed the point, but isn't the goal to define > the HD ratio that is equivalent to the historical allocation > rates? to make a log fit a linear? is that a bit like squaring a circle? i think we're down to the question of who gets screwed. and it's pretty clear that it's the small folk. since the hd ratio stuff came from the telco world, i guess i am not surprised. randy From terry.l.davis at boeing.com Thu Feb 23 17:51:34 2006 From: terry.l.davis at boeing.com (Davis, Terry L) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 08:51:34 -0800 Subject: [ppml] [address-policy-wg] 2005-01 - Last Call for Comments(HD-ratio Proposal) Message-ID: <0D090F1E0F5536449C7E6527AFFA280A21BB90@XCH-NW-8V1.nw.nos.boeing.com> Geoff/Randy Just as an aside, efficiency targets probably won't work when applied to mobile networks. Most large global mobile (ships & planes) platforms won't use but a much smaller fraction of the assignment. /24 is the smallest workable unit for global movement with any currently defined schemes. Localized mobility (trains/ferries/trucking) within a small geographical area (or even possibly even a region) may be able to get higher efficiencies depending on strategy/architecture. Take care Terry -----Original Message----- From: Geoff Huston [mailto:gih at apnic.net] Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 7:44 PM To: Randy Bush Cc: ppml at arin.net; address-policy-wg at ripe.net; sig-policy at apnic.net Subject: Re: [ppml] [address-policy-wg] 2005-01 - Last Call for Comments(HD-ratio Proposal) At 02:07 PM 23/02/2006, Randy Bush wrote: > > HD Ratio Ratio Mean Std Dev > > 0.98 1.04868 0.02285 > > 0.97 1.25899 0.03363 > > 0.96 1.45854 0.03371 > > 0.95 1.63073 0.02848 > > 0.94 1.78332 0.01859 > >and what does .98 do to the flight ceiling of small folk? > >randy I'll respond to this question, but in the interests of not wishing to overwhelming a whole swag of mailing lists I'll make this my last posting on this topic today. An HD Ratio of 0.98 imposes a higher efficiency target than the existing 80% rate for all prefix sizes smaller than a /16, and lower than 80% for allocations greater than a /16 (e.g. an HD Ratio of 0.98 implies an efficiency threshold of 72% for a /9 allocation.) As an example, if you had an end use population of between 3,277 and 6,554 numbered devices you would qualify for a /19 allocation under an 80% rule, while under an HD Ratio of 0.98 the end use population is between 3,468 and 6,841, corresponding to a required address efficiency level of 84% on this address block in order to qualify for a further address allocation. The use of an HD Ratio of 0.96 corresponds to an 80% efficiency level for a /24, so that 0.96 is no worse than 80% for all allocations, whereas HD Ratios greater than 0.96 impose an efficiency constraint greater than 80% on the smaller address blocks (/16 through to /24) - this can be easily modelled on any spreadsheet of course. regards, Geoff _______________________________________________ PPML mailing list PPML at arin.net http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml From german at lacnic.net Fri Feb 24 17:41:12 2006 From: german at lacnic.net (German Valdez) Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 13:41:12 -0300 Subject: [ppml] [address-policy-wg] 2005-01 - Last Call for Comments(HD-ratio Proposal) In-Reply-To: <0D090F1E0F5536449C7E6527AFFA280A21BB90@XCH-NW-8V1.nw.nos.boeing.com> Message-ID: <200602241820.k1OIJJlF099998@micron.lacnic.net.uy> Friends >From LACNIC we have been following closely the discussion of this proposal. This proposal was shared in LACNIC community, since then we have received comments from members in LAC region. The comments in general show a concern about the possibility that the adoption of this policy in other regions may cause an excesive consume of IP addresses. The outcome of this would produce a bigger disparity and unfairness in the distribution of address space among the regions. It is not our intention to influence in the policy in other regions, however we call for caution and we exhort that all the elements involved be thoroughly examined and also those potential consequences in other regions be considered. . Regards German Valdez Policy and External Relations Manager LACNIC > -----Mensaje original----- > De: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net > [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net] En nombre de Davis, Terry L > Enviado el: Jueves, 23 de Febrero de 2006 01:52 p.m. > Para: Geoff Huston; Randy Bush > CC: ppml at arin.net; address-policy-wg at ripe.net; sig-policy at apnic.net > Asunto: RE: [ppml] [address-policy-wg] 2005-01 - Last Call > for Comments(HD-ratio Proposal) > > Geoff/Randy > > Just as an aside, efficiency targets probably won't work when > applied to mobile networks. Most large global mobile (ships > & planes) platforms won't use but a much smaller fraction of > the assignment. /24 is the smallest workable unit for global > movement with any currently defined schemes. > > Localized mobility (trains/ferries/trucking) within a small > geographical area (or even possibly even a region) may be > able to get higher efficiencies depending on strategy/architecture. > > Take care > Terry > > -----Original Message----- > From: Geoff Huston [mailto:gih at apnic.net] > Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 7:44 PM > To: Randy Bush > Cc: ppml at arin.net; address-policy-wg at ripe.net; sig-policy at apnic.net > Subject: Re: [ppml] [address-policy-wg] 2005-01 - Last Call > for Comments(HD-ratio Proposal) > > At 02:07 PM 23/02/2006, Randy Bush wrote: > > > HD Ratio Ratio Mean Std Dev > > > 0.98 1.04868 0.02285 > > > 0.97 1.25899 0.03363 > > > 0.96 1.45854 0.03371 > > > 0.95 1.63073 0.02848 > > > 0.94 1.78332 0.01859 > > > >and what does .98 do to the flight ceiling of small folk? > > > >randy > > > I'll respond to this question, but in the interests of not > wishing to overwhelming a whole swag of mailing lists I'll > make this my last posting on this topic today. > > An HD Ratio of 0.98 imposes a higher efficiency target than > the existing 80% rate for all prefix sizes smaller than a > /16, and lower than 80% for > > allocations greater than a /16 (e.g. an HD Ratio of 0.98 > implies an efficiency threshold of 72% for a /9 allocation.) > > As an example, if you had an end use population of between 3,277 and > 6,554 > numbered devices you would qualify for a /19 allocation under > an 80% rule, while under an HD Ratio of 0.98 the end use > population is between 3,468 and 6,841, corresponding to a > required address efficiency level of 84% on this address > block in order to qualify for a further address allocation. > > The use of an HD Ratio of 0.96 corresponds to an 80% > efficiency level for a /24, so that 0.96 is no worse than 80% > for all allocations, whereas HD Ratios greater than 0.96 > impose an efficiency constraint greater than 80% on the > smaller address blocks (/16 through to /24) - this can be > easily modelled on any spreadsheet of course. > > regards, > > Geoff > > _______________________________________________ > PPML mailing list > PPML at arin.net > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml > From adrian at ripe.net Tue Feb 28 12:33:06 2006 From: adrian at ripe.net (RIPE NCC Policy Coordinator) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 12:33:06 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2005-09 Last Call for Comments (IANA Policy for Allocation of IPv6 Blocks to RIRs) Message-ID: <20060228113306.A4E352F592@herring.ripe.net> PDP Number: 2005-09 IANA Policy for Allocation of IPv6 Blocks to RIRs Dear Colleagues The proposal described in 2005-09 is now at its final stage. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2005-09.html Please e-mail any final comments about this proposal to address-policy-wg at ripe.net before 27 March 2006. We will publish the new policy after this date if we receive no objections. Regards Adrian Bedford RIPE NCC Policy Coordinator