Policy proposal: #beta: IPv4-HD-Ratio
Hello, we from Bluewin fully support the proposal Policy proposal: #beta: IPv4-HD-Ratio LIR: ch.bluewindow Vote: YES Comment: ISP's providing access services to many customers face several problems - Usage in different PoP's changes; at one time you have many customers in one PoP, at another time in others. You need to supply enough adresses to all PoPs even though they aren't needed all the time. - Assymetric usage of pools and redundancy To provide redundancy you overallocate some IP addresses to be able to handle the failure of single devices The pool usage on the devices and device groups are not balanced - RFC 3194 is as true for IPv4 as for IPv6 - consistency between IPv4 and IPv6 policies Kind regards, Guido Roeskens Swisscom Fixnet AG Bluewin
On 11-apr-2005, at 10:41, Guido Roeskens wrote:
we from Bluewin fully support the proposal
Policy proposal: #beta: IPv4-HD-Ratio LIR: ch.bluewindow Vote: YES
Comment: ISP's providing access services to many customers face several problems - Usage in different PoP's changes; at one time you have many customers in one PoP, at another time in others. You need to supply enough adresses to all PoPs even though they aren't needed all the time. - Assymetric usage of pools and redundancy To provide redundancy you overallocate some IP addresses to be able to handle the failure of single devices The pool usage on the devices and device groups are not balanced - RFC 3194 is as true for IPv4 as for IPv6 - consistency between IPv4 and IPv6 policies
What are you proposing? RFC 3194 is a descriptive RFC, it doesn't proscribe anything. What kind of HD ratio would you want to apply to IPv4 allocations? Note that the current HD ratio for all IPv4 address space that isn't reserved by IANA is 90.45%.
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 11-apr-2005, at 10:41, Guido Roeskens wrote:
we from Bluewin fully support the proposal
Policy proposal: #beta: IPv4-HD-Ratio LIR: ch.bluewindow Vote: YES
Comment: ISP's providing access services to many customers face several problems - Usage in different PoP's changes; at one time you have many customers in one PoP, at another time in others. You need to supply enough adresses to all PoPs even though they aren't needed all the time. - Assymetric usage of pools and redundancy To provide redundancy you overallocate some IP addresses to be able to handle the failure of single devices The pool usage on the devices and device groups are not balanced - RFC 3194 is as true for IPv4 as for IPv6 - consistency between IPv4 and IPv6 policies
What are you proposing? RFC 3194 is a descriptive RFC, it doesn't proscribe anything. What kind of HD ratio would you want to apply to IPv4 allocations?
Look for the mail by alain.bidron@francetelecom.com with the subject "HD ratio policy proposal" In the mail is a formal proposal entitled "IPv4-HD-Ratio" which has the key sentence "The proposed value of the HD ratio for IPv4 is 0.96"
Note that the current HD ratio for all IPv4 address space that isn't reserved by IANA is 90.45%.
As you see the HD Ratio propsed is much higher but would help LIR's with bigger allocations to justify their IP usage. Guido Roeskens Swisscom Fixnet AG Bluewin
which has the key sentence "The proposed value of the HD ratio for IPv4 is 0.96"
Note that the current HD ratio for all IPv4 address space that isn't reserved by IANA is 90.45%.
As you see the HD Ratio propsed is much higher but would help LIR's with bigger allocations to justify their IP usage.
You are comparing apples and oranges. Or maybe you have painted all your apples with orange paint. The proposal suggests that the HD ratio should be 0.96 It does not mention a percentage. In fact, a percentage is a kind of ratio but it is not the same kind of ratio as the HD ratio. The comment regarding all IP address space that is not reserved by IANA is not clear whether it is talking about an HD ratio or an allocation percentage. And the most important thing is that it does not say what is the source of the numbers that lead to the 90.45 result. HD ratio for IPv4 is intended to count the number of addresses assigned by an LIR and compare that to the number of addresses that RIPE (or another RIR) has allocated to the LIR. When discussing "all IPv4 address space" or "IANA reserved address space" we are talking about address attributes that are not covered by the HD ratio as we know it. --Michael Dillon
On 26-apr-2005, at 15:22, Michael.Dillon@radianz.com wrote:
Note that the current HD ratio for all IPv4 address space that isn't reserved by IANA is 90.45%.
As you see the HD Ratio propsed is much higher but would help LIR's with bigger allocations to justify their IP usage.
You are comparing apples and oranges. Or maybe you have painted all your apples with orange paint.
The proposal suggests that the HD ratio should be 0.96 It does not mention a percentage. In fact, a percentage is a kind of ratio but it is not the same kind of ratio as the HD ratio.
From RFC 3194: log(number of allocated objects) HD = ------------------------------------------ log(maximum number of allocatable objects) This ratio is defined for any number of allocatable objects greater than 1 and any number of allocated objects greater or equal than 1 and less than or equal the maximum number of allocatable objects. The ratio is usually presented as a percentage, e.g. 70%. It varies between 0 (0%), when there is just one allocation, and 1 (100%), when there is one object allocated to each available address.
The comment regarding all IP address space that is not reserved by IANA is not clear whether it is talking about an HD ratio or an allocation percentage. And the most important thing is that it does not say what is the source of the numbers that lead to the 90.45 result.
Out of the 256 /8 blocks 32 are class D (224 - 239, multicast) and E (240 - 255, reserved) and three others are also unusable: 0, 10 and 127. Of the 221 usable /8s 72 were unused as of March 2005. See http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space . According to the ISC Domain Survey at http://www.isc.org/ds/ 317 million IPv4 hosts had a domain name in January 2005. So that's 149 * 2^24 = 2.5 billion allocatable objects with 317 million objects allocated, or: 8.501 / 9.397 = 0.9047. (log base 10.)
HD ratio for IPv4 is intended to count the number of addresses assigned by an LIR and compare that to the number of addresses that RIPE (or another RIR) has allocated to the LIR.
No, the intent of the HD ratio is to show that we need IPv6 even though only some 9% of all usable IPv6 addresses are in use. (Throw in standard disclaimer about the host count.)
When discussing "all IPv4 address space" or "IANA reserved address space" we are talking about address attributes that are not covered by the HD ratio as we know it.
The HD ratio is just a rule of thumb that says on everage, we waste one fifth to an eighth of the address length. The fact that we're now apparently using more than 90% oof the address length while including sparsely populated pre-1993 address space shows that the HD ratio isn't all that useful, although it's main point, that there are losses at allocation boundaries, is of course very true.
On 25-apr-2005, at 8:55, Guido Roeskens wrote:
What are you proposing? RFC 3194 is a descriptive RFC, it doesn't proscribe anything. What kind of HD ratio would you want to apply to IPv4 allocations?
The proposed value of the HD ratio for IPv4 is 0.96"
Note that the current HD ratio for all IPv4 address space that isn't reserved by IANA is 90.45%.
As you see the HD Ratio propsed is much higher but would help LIR's with bigger allocations to justify their IP usage.
Ah, but the crucial question then becomes: what size allocation are these LIRs going to receive? For a /16 a HD ratio of 96% means 42k out of 66k addresses must be used = 64% (where k = 1000), but for a / 12 it means 602k out of 1049k = 57% and for a /8 8.6M out of 16.8M = 51%. So this means that if this proposal is accepted, it's important for the NCC to allocate the smallest possible blocks, and certainly not blocks of a million addresses or more, which seems to be the latest trend that nobody in the know seems to want to comment on. Also, it seems counter-intuitive that the more addreses you have, the more you're going to waste. Sure, a big ISP may have one or even two more aggregation levels than a small one, but it's easier to reroute part of 8.2M unused addresses to somewhere else in your network than some of 20 unused addresses as would happen in a very small network.
look, the hd ratio is simple. because it is log, rather than linear, it gives bigger allocations to those with bigger allocations, the rich get richer. all the rest of the discussion is high-sugar, low protein icing. randy
On Tue, Apr 26, 2005 at 09:40:01AM -1000, Randy Bush wrote:
look, the hd ratio is simple. because it is log, rather than linear, it gives bigger allocations to those with bigger allocations, the rich get richer. all the rest of the discussion is high-sugar, low protein icing.
And the rich will claim they have a right to a larger share of the resource since they have a justified tendency to be less efficient with these resources than the poor ... David Kessens ---
David and all, IPv4 or IPv6 resources and their use of distribution should not be determined by the economic status or those requesting them, but rather based upon in part, on need and effective use for the greater good.. David Kessens wrote:
On Tue, Apr 26, 2005 at 09:40:01AM -1000, Randy Bush wrote:
look, the hd ratio is simple. because it is log, rather than linear, it gives bigger allocations to those with bigger allocations, the rich get richer. all the rest of the discussion is high-sugar, low protein icing.
And the rich will claim they have a right to a larger share of the resource since they have a justified tendency to be less efficient with these resources than the poor ...
David Kessens ---
Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!) "Be precise in the use of words and expect precision from others" - Pierre Abelard "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Registered Email addr with the USPS Contact Number: 214-244-4827
participants (6)
-
David Kessens -
Guido Roeskens -
Iljitsch van Beijnum -
Jeff Williams -
Michael.Dillon＠radianz.com -
Randy Bush