From ncc at ripe.net Thu Mar 2 14:11:48 2006 From: ncc at ripe.net (Paul Rendek) Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2006 14:11:48 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] ASO Call for Nominations for ICANN Board Seat Message-ID: <4406EF14.20905@ripe.net> Apologies for duplicate e-mails Sent on behalf of the The Address Supporting Organization (ASO) *ASO Call for Nominations for ICANN Board Seat* In compliance with the ASO Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) and ICANN bylaws, the Address Council is calling for nominations to the ICANN Board to fill the ASO seat currently held by Mouhamet Diop, whose term expires in June of 2006. This nomination period will close on 4 April 2006. Nominations may be submitted by anyone by sending e-mail to: nominations at aso.icann.org Nominations must include the following information: - Full name of person being nominated - Contact email address for person being nominated - Contact telephone number (if available) of the person being nominated - Full name of the person making the nomination - Contact email address for the person making the nomination - Contact telephone number of the person making the nomination Nominations will be reviewed in accordance with the ASO Board of Directors selection procedures, as documented on the ASO website. Best regards, Paul Rendek Head of Member Services and Communications RIPE NCC From save at apnic.net Tue Mar 7 05:31:19 2006 From: save at apnic.net (Save Vocea) Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2006 14:31:19 +1000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2005-01 - Last Call for Comments (HD-ratio Proposal) In-Reply-To: <8f5c68a40602202234v68f791ccidebcb1aba5d94be0@mail.gmail.com> References: <20060207075132.B63E52F598@herring.ripe.net> <8f5c68a40602202234v68f791ccidebcb1aba5d94be0@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4E1F9CDD-14B6-41A6-8EFA-E2C9D91291B3@apnic.net> Hi, At the APNIC 21 Open policy meeting held last week the Policy SIG chairs were requested to facilitate a discussion and the chairs to seek consensus on the future of the proposal of 'Application of HD ratio to IPv4' in APNIC. Here are some comments from the discussion: - It was suggested that if this proposal was adopted in any region, it could have significant negative impacts on IPv4 address consumption. It was noted that the LACNIC community is very concerned about this issue. - It was noted that a recent analysis of the potential impact of this policy, which looked at the past 5 year's allocation patterns, concluded that use of the HD-ratio over that period would have meant a 47 percent increase in address consumption in the RIPE region and a 49 percent increase in the APNIC region. It was noted that if all RIRs were to adopt this policy, it could accelerate total address exhaustion by two years. It was also noted that if some RIRs adopted this policy then it could have significant impacts on the ability of smaller RIRs to get IPv4. - It was noted that current consumption rates indicate a potential IPv4 exhaustion date of mid-2012. - It was noted that when this proposal was first raised, projected IPv4 lifetime was over 15 years, however allocation rates have increased since then. - The Chair suggested moving this discussion to the policy mailing list for a further month, then leaving it up to the SIG chair to decide whether to continue or abandon the proposal. regards, Save -- Savenaca Vocea, Policy Development Manager, Asia Pacific Network Information Centre http://www.apnic.net ph/fx +61 7 3858 3100/99 On 21/02/2006, at 4:34 PM, 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 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 gih at apnic.net Wed Mar 8 02:10:25 2006 From: gih at apnic.net (Geoff Huston) Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2006 12:10:25 +1100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2005-01 - Last Call for Comments (HD-ratio Proposal) In-Reply-To: <4E1F9CDD-14B6-41A6-8EFA-E2C9D91291B3@apnic.net> References: <20060207075132.B63E52F598@herring.ripe.net> <8f5c68a40602202234v68f791ccidebcb1aba5d94be0@mail.gmail.com> <4E1F9CDD-14B6-41A6-8EFA-E2C9D91291B3@apnic.net> Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.2.20060308120954.02c18810@kahuna.telstra.net> Here's a report of the report on the analysis of impacts of this policy proposal Geoff ===== 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 03:31 PM 7/03/2006, Save Vocea wrote: >Hi, > >At the APNIC 21 Open policy meeting held last week the Policy SIG >chairs were requested to facilitate a discussion and the chairs to >seek consensus on the future of the proposal of 'Application of HD >ratio to IPv4' in APNIC. > >Here are some comments from the discussion: > >- It was suggested that if this proposal was adopted in any >region, it could have significant negative impacts on IPv4 address >consumption. It was noted that the LACNIC community is very concerned >about this issue. > >- It was noted that a recent analysis of the potential impact of >this policy, which looked at the past 5 year's allocation patterns, >concluded that use of the HD-ratio over that period would have meant >a 47 percent increase in address consumption in the RIPE region and a >49 percent increase in the APNIC region. It was noted that if all >RIRs were to adopt this policy, it could accelerate total address >exhaustion by two years. It was also noted that if some RIRs adopted >this policy then it could have significant impacts on the ability of >smaller RIRs to get IPv4. > >- It was noted that current consumption rates indicate a >potential IPv4 exhaustion date of mid-2012. > >- It was noted that when this proposal was first raised, >projected IPv4 lifetime was over 15 years, however allocation rates >have increased since then. > >- The Chair suggested moving this discussion to the policy >mailing list for a further month, then leaving it up to the SIG chair >to decide whether to continue or abandon the proposal. > > >regards, >Save >-- >Savenaca Vocea, Policy Development Manager, >Asia Pacific Network Information Centre >http://www.apnic.net ph/fx >+61 7 3858 3100/99 > > >On 21/02/2006, at 4:34 PM, 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 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 debecker at etno.be Tue Mar 14 13:00:25 2006 From: debecker at etno.be (Debecker J.L.) Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 13:00:25 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] ETNO comments on RIPE Policy Proposal 2005-09 Message-ID: <000701c6475e$e124c8a0$0b01a8c0@etno.be> RIPE ? Dear Sir, Madam, ? ETNO, representing?41 major telecom operators from 34 European countries, has studied the proposed global ?Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) policy for allocation of IPv6 blocks to Regional Internet Registries?. The Association supports the document and welcomes the open and transparent process used in the development of this proposal. More details are in the attached Expert Contribution EC080. The document is the unanimous opinion of ETNO Members represented in the ETNO Naming, Addressing and Numbering Working Group and has been endorsed by the ETNO Board. ? We are all prepared to discuss these comments in more detail and whenever useful. ETNO will be pleased to contribute to the further development of Europe?s views on the issue. ? Best regards, ? Michael Bartholomew ETNO Director ------------------------- March 2006 ETNO Expert Contribution on the ?Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) policy for allocation of IPv6 blocks to Regional Internet Registries? Executive Summary ETNO supports the proposed global ?Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) policy for allocation of IPv6 blocks to Regional Internet Registries? and welcomes the open and transparent process used in the development of this proposal. The European Telecommunications Network Operators' Association ETNO (1) has carefully reviewed the proposed global policy on ?Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Policy for Allocation of IPv6 Blocks to Regional Internet Registries?. ETNO understands that currently no global policy for allocating IPv6 addresses from IANA to RIRs is in place and believes that such a policy is needed. Current allocations from IANA are done on a /23 basis, which in practice have shown that this fixed allocation size is too small and do not allow for efficient and effective management of the resource by the RIRs. The proposal to use /12 as a unit of IPv6 allocation from IANA to RIRs will overcome these problems mentioned above. The policy also provides clear rules and procedures for calculation of available and necessary space and criteria for eligibility for initial and additional allocations. This whole new concept was discussed in an open and transparent way and finally supported within all RIRs fora. ETNO supports this approach as it provides higher flexibility for the RIRs to achieve an efficient and effective management of the IPv6 resource for the benefit of their members and the overall Internet community. (1) The European Telecommunications Network Operators' Association is representing 41 major companies from 34 European countries, providing electronic communications networks over fixed, mobile or personal communications systems. ETNO's primary purpose is to establish a constructive dialogue between its member companies and actors involved in the development of the European Information Society to the benefit of users. More information on ETNO can be found at: www.etno.be ETNO Expert Contribution EC080 (2006/03) -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: EC080 - NANI IPv6 allocation.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 41347 bytes Desc: not available URL: From ondrej.sury at nic.cz Fri Mar 24 13:47:11 2006 From: ondrej.sury at nic.cz (=?iso-8859-2?Q?Ond=F8ej_Sur=FD?=) Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 13:47:11 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] IP Assignments for anycasting DNS Message-ID: <1143204431.17524.10.camel@localhost.localdomain> Hi, I would like to stir the waters around /subj policy proposal. When I requested additional anycast IPv4 addresses for our secondaries I was told, that RIPE cannot allocate /24 for one server according to current policies, hence I would like to see this policy proposal finished. Is there anything we can do to help finishing this proposal? Ondrej. -- Ond?ej Sur? technick? ?editel/Chief Technical Officer ----------------------------------------- CZ.NIC, z.s.p.o. -- .cz domain registry Lu?n? 591, 160 00 Praha 6, Czech Republic mailto:ondrej.sury at nic.cz http://nic.cz/ tel:+420 222 745 110 fax:+420 220 121 184 ----------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 5888 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jorgen at hovland.cx Fri Mar 24 15:16:35 2006 From: jorgen at hovland.cx (=?utf-8?Q?J=C3=B8rgen_Hovland?=) Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 15:16:35 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] IP Assignments for anycasting DNS In-Reply-To: <1143204431.17524.10.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <004601c64f4d$8efbf1b0$4a27b3d5@tungemaskin> Hi Ondrej, You don't need a dedicated /24 in the global routing table for using anycast on your server. We are using anycast on our nameservers today using a single IP-address (/32) assigned from an aggregated unicast /20 at multiple locations and have had no problems with that. There was also a discussion about a certain IPv6 anycast proposal not long ago. Many of the same arguments can be used with IPv4 so I find it no good starting a new discussion about the same topic, but do as you wish. Cheers, j -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Ondrej Sur? Sent: 24. mars 2006 13:47 To: address-policy-wg at ripe.net Subject: [address-policy-wg] IP Assignments for anycasting DNS Hi, I would like to stir the waters around /subj policy proposal. When I requested additional anycast IPv4 addresses for our secondaries I was told, that RIPE cannot allocate /24 for one server according to current policies, hence I would like to see this policy proposal finished. Is there anything we can do to help finishing this proposal? Ondrej. -- Ond?ej Sur? technick? ?editel/Chief Technical Officer ----------------------------------------- CZ.NIC, z.s.p.o. -- .cz domain registry Lu?n? 591, 160 00 Praha 6, Czech Republic mailto:ondrej.sury at nic.cz http://nic.cz/ tel:+420 222 745 110 fax:+420 220 121 184 -----------------------------------------