Millions of Internet Addresses Are Lying Idle
All, Seems that all the hub bub regarding IPv4 address space being very limited is really not so. As I and others have advocated for years, reclaiming unused IPv4 space is needed. See: The most comprehensive scan of the entire internet for several decades http://www.technologyreview.com/web/21528/ shows that millions of allocated addresses simply aren't being used. Professor John Heidemann from the University of Southern California (USC) used ICMP and TCP to scan the internet. Even though the last IPv4 addresses will be handed out in a couple of years, his survey reveals that many of the addresses allocated to big companies and institutions are lying idle. Heidemann says: 'People are very concerned that the IPv4 address space is very close to being exhausted. Our data suggests that maybe there are better things we should be doing in managing the IPv4 address space.' So, is it time to reclaim those unused addresses before the IPv6 crunch?" Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "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. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827
Jeffrey, On Wed, 2008-10-15 at 00:13 -0700, Jeffrey A. Williams wrote:
All,
Seems that all the hub bub regarding IPv4 address space being very limited is really not so. As I and others have advocated for years, reclaiming unused IPv4 space is needed.
See: The most comprehensive scan of the entire internet for several decades http://www.technologyreview.com/web/21528/ shows that millions of allocated addresses simply aren't being used.
Reclaiming unused IPv4 space is very expensive. The RIR system was never designed with reclamation in mind, and fear or selfishness on the part of existing participants has prevented even small moves towards fixing this (see discussions of 2007-01 for more insight). What this means is, even if the space is available to be reclaimed the costs for getting IPv4 space will be much, much higher than today. The idea of a market may help to lower these costs (or not), but the costs will still be there. Any time you see a change in a fundamental resource after decades of relatively low cost, there will be economic upset(*). When you into a black hole, nothing magical happens when you cross the event horizon. But your situation is very different. Likewise, when the last IPv4 address is allocated from the IANA to an RIR, no immediate catastrophe will happen, but the rules of the game will have changed. -- Shane (*) For example: http://blog.wired.com/cars/2008/06/rising-gas-pric.html
Shane and all, See my response/remarks interspersed below... Shane Kerr wrote:
Jeffrey,
On Wed, 2008-10-15 at 00:13 -0700, Jeffrey A. Williams wrote:
All,
Seems that all the hub bub regarding IPv4 address space being very limited is really not so. As I and others have advocated for years, reclaiming unused IPv4 space is needed.
See: The most comprehensive scan of the entire internet for several decades http://www.technologyreview.com/web/21528/ shows that millions of allocated addresses simply aren't being used.
Reclaiming unused IPv4 space is very expensive. The RIR system was never designed with reclamation in mind, and fear or selfishness on the part of existing participants has prevented even small moves towards fixing this (see discussions of 2007-01 for more insight).
Sorry I don't except you premise that reclaiming unused IPv4 space is very expensive. Certainly your right that the early on allocation system was grossly ill conceived, I remember I was there and argued frequently with Jon Postel in this area. 2007-01 does not demonstrate the proper time frame for relevant insight.
What this means is, even if the space is available to be reclaimed the costs for getting IPv4 space will be much, much higher than today.
Compared to what time frame, and again why? Simply stating something does not make it so or even reasonable. More justification for this statement is needed.
The idea of a market may help to lower these costs (or not), but the costs will still be there. Any time you see a change in a fundamental resource after decades of relatively low cost, there will be economic upset(*).
I agree very generally with your last sentence here. Not your first, however. Any "Market" where IP address space is auctioned off like a comodity will early on sore in price, than maybe later graduate down or flatten out. But this depends if the "Market" is regulated or not, and if so, how it is regulated, whom is the regulator, and how diligent that or those regulators are to adhering to the yet to be determined regulations by which that "Market" operates under.
When you into a black hole, nothing magical happens when you cross the event horizon. But your situation is very different. Likewise, when the last IPv4 address is allocated from the IANA to an RIR, no immediate catastrophe will happen, but the rules of the game will have changed.
True. But first in this instance, if no reclaiming of IPv4 address space is accomplished, and there is not defined "Market" than the stability of the legacy internet is under siege and ripe, pardon the pun, for mischief. Maybe I should consider a new form of dirivitive, something like an IPvswap and take the IMF up on their graciously termed loan to better market IPv8? >:) At least this way it will be a unregulated market for a while ( several years ), IPv4 address space will become nearly worthless in terms of $$ value, and IPv6 will get a boost in acceptance, while all the while the loan will be eventually paid by large EU IPv4 holders. Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "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. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827
-- Shane
(*) For example: http://blog.wired.com/cars/2008/06/rising-gas-pric.html
Jeffrey, On Wed, 2008-10-15 at 03:54 -0700, Jeffrey A. Williams wrote:
Reclaiming unused IPv4 space is very expensive. The RIR system was never designed with reclamation in mind, and fear or selfishness on the part of existing participants has prevented even small moves towards fixing this (see discussions of 2007-01 for more insight).
Sorry I don't except you premise that reclaiming unused IPv4 space is very expensive.
The current work for allocating IPv4 space is: * Verify requester needs space * Search the available list for space To reclaim space, one must do something like: * Find space one thinks might be available * Figure out the contact for the space * Request the space from said contact * Handle cases where contact is unavailable or uncooperative * "Decontaminate" space for a while (optional but recommended) * Put space on the available list Someone has to do all of these tasks, and the timelines can be quite long. I am *not* saying it is impossible, only that it is a lot more work than what we have today. And that work is what will make it expensive.
The idea of a market may help to lower these costs (or not), but the costs will still be there. Any time you see a change in a fundamental resource after decades of relatively low cost, there will be economic upset(*).
I agree very generally with your last sentence here. Not your first, however. Any "Market" where IP address space is auctioned off like a comodity will early on sore in price, than maybe later graduate down or flatten out. But this depends if the "Market" is regulated or not, and if so, how it is regulated, whom is the regulator, and how diligent that or those regulators are to adhering to the yet to be determined regulations by which that "Market" operates under.
I do not believe a market will actually solve the shortage problem. I do believe there already is a market, and it is better to record who is responsible for addresses rather than make an even bigger mess than the current system. -- shane
Shane and all, Again my response/remarks are interspersed below... Shane Kerr wrote:
Jeffrey,
On Wed, 2008-10-15 at 03:54 -0700, Jeffrey A. Williams wrote:
Reclaiming unused IPv4 space is very expensive. The RIR system was never designed with reclamation in mind, and fear or selfishness on the part of existing participants has prevented even small moves towards fixing this (see discussions of 2007-01 for more insight).
Sorry I don't except you premise that reclaiming unused IPv4 space is very expensive.
The current work for allocating IPv4 space is:
* Verify requester needs space * Search the available list for space
To reclaim space, one must do something like:
* Find space one thinks might be available * Figure out the contact for the space * Request the space from said contact * Handle cases where contact is unavailable or uncooperative * "Decontaminate" space for a while (optional but recommended) * Put space on the available list
Someone has to do all of these tasks, and the timelines can be quite long. I am *not* saying it is impossible, only that it is a lot more work than what we have today. And that work is what will make it expensive.
Much of the first two on your list are mostly already known. The forth is easy to handle, expose those that are not cooperating, and deny then further address space, even IPv6 unless or until they do cooperate. These measures cost very little. I have no idea what the fifth in your list costs, but seems to me it would also be very little.
The idea of a market may help to lower these costs (or not), but the costs will still be there. Any time you see a change in a fundamental resource after decades of relatively low cost, there will be economic upset(*).
I agree very generally with your last sentence here. Not your first, however. Any "Market" where IP address space is auctioned off like a comodity will early on sore in price, than maybe later graduate down or flatten out. But this depends if the "Market" is regulated or not, and if so, how it is regulated, whom is the regulator, and how diligent that or those regulators are to adhering to the yet to be determined regulations by which that "Market" operates under.
I do not believe a market will actually solve the shortage problem.
Ok good, thanks for the clarification. I agree that a "Market" will not solve the problem, and in fact stands a better chance of making the problem worse in some ways.
I do believe there already is a market, and it is better to record who is responsible for addresses rather than make an even bigger mess than the current system.
Perhaps but this will not reclaim the vast majority of the unused IPv4 space. Secondly a black market already exists and will flourish if not delt with strictly. Black markets have no regulator, but do have plenty of customers. Ergo the market your seem to suggest will be token at best as it is mainly based on good will. Good will doesn't buy much these days...
-- shane
Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "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. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827
On Oct 15, 2008, at 3:52 PM, Jeffrey A. Williams wrote:
* Find space one thinks might be available * Figure out the contact for the space * Request the space from said contact * Handle cases where contact is unavailable or uncooperative * "Decontaminate" space for a while (optional but recommended) * Put space on the available list
Someone has to do all of these tasks, and the timelines can be quite long. I am *not* saying it is impossible, only that it is a lot more work than what we have today. And that work is what will make it expensive.
Much of the first two on your list are mostly already known. The forth is easy to handle, expose those that are not cooperating, and deny then further address space, even IPv6 unless or until they do cooperate. These measures cost very little. I have no idea what the fifth in your list costs, but seems to me it would also be very little.
And how exactly is this already known ? I wouldn't trust whois data, especially not for the older pre-rir blocks to judge which is avalaible or whois is contact. Or do you want to scan ? What do you do when somebody blackholes you, judge the addresses as available? How to handle any legal implications resulting from this scanning, which others see as network intrusion or at least handle all the 'stop scanning my network' complaints. I personally don't think you can invent a 'reclaim system', your 20 years late for it. I don't like the market as well, but I see it as the only easy way to push people into cleaning up and releasing addresses they don't need. MarcoH
* Jeffrey A. Williams:
Seems that all the hub bub regarding IPv4 address space being very limited is really not so. As I and others have advocated for years, reclaiming unused IPv4 space is needed.
Well ...
See: The most comprehensive scan of the entire internet for several decades http://www.technologyreview.com/web/21528/ shows that millions of
... has anybody got a link to the actual paper? Based on the press reports, the methodology seems flawed, and the claims about unprecedented scope look bogus. -- Florian Weimer <fweimer@bfk.de> BFK edv-consulting GmbH http://www.bfk.de/ Kriegsstraße 100 tel: +49-721-96201-1 D-76133 Karlsruhe fax: +49-721-96201-99
... has anybody got a link to the actual paper? Based on the press reports, the methodology seems flawed, and the claims about unprecedented scope look bogus.
The methodology is very flawed because it does not account for private internetworks, which do not exchange traffic with the Internet. Also, although they took some precautions to reduce the loss of their probe packets, there are still some things like ICMP blocking, which make large chunks of address space completely invisible to them. You can read their paper at <http://www.isi.edu/~johnh/PAPERS/Heidemann08c.pdf> It is interesting work from a technical standpoint, but from a policy standpoint, it is not terribly useful since it is intended to measure the public Internet, not the approved usage of the IPv4 address space. Remember, we approve the use of IPv4 addresses that are not assigned to hosts. For instance, a company can assign a /29 to a subnet with 5 hosts, and their LIR will count all 8 addresses as being in use, in conformance with RIPE policy. --Michael Dillon
Thanks, Michael. It is a general and (unfortunately) widespread misconception that "using" an IP-Address(-Block) in line with the resource distribution policy makes it visible and accessible on the "Internet" by sort of magic. While this line of thinking is flawed in the IPv4-world, it is even more fundamentally flawed in the IPv6-world - but still popping up again and again in various discussions and policy proposals. Sigh... Wilfried. michael.dillon@bt.com wrote:
... has anybody got a link to the actual paper? Based on the press reports, the methodology seems flawed, and the claims about unprecedented scope look bogus.
The methodology is very flawed because it does not account for private internetworks, which do not exchange traffic with the Internet. Also, although they took some precautions to reduce the loss of their probe packets, there are still some things like ICMP blocking, which make large chunks of address space completely invisible to them.
You can read their paper at <http://www.isi.edu/~johnh/PAPERS/Heidemann08c.pdf>
It is interesting work from a technical standpoint, but from a policy standpoint, it is not terribly useful since it is intended to measure the public Internet, not the approved usage of the IPv4 address space. Remember, we approve the use of IPv4 addresses that are not assigned to hosts. For instance, a company can assign a /29 to a subnet with 5 hosts, and their LIR will count all 8 addresses as being in use, in conformance with RIPE policy.
--Michael Dillon
Michael and all, Good point. My question is, isn't this something that should be addressed more fully by ICANN in terms of policy rather than the RIR's independantly? Just a thought... michael.dillon@bt.com wrote:
... has anybody got a link to the actual paper? Based on the press reports, the methodology seems flawed, and the claims about unprecedented scope look bogus.
The methodology is very flawed because it does not account for private internetworks, which do not exchange traffic with the Internet. Also, although they took some precautions to reduce the loss of their probe packets, there are still some things like ICMP blocking, which make large chunks of address space completely invisible to them.
You can read their paper at <http://www.isi.edu/~johnh/PAPERS/Heidemann08c.pdf>
It is interesting work from a technical standpoint, but from a policy standpoint, it is not terribly useful since it is intended to measure the public Internet, not the approved usage of the IPv4 address space. Remember, we approve the use of IPv4 addresses that are not assigned to hosts. For instance, a company can assign a /29 to a subnet with 5 hosts, and their LIR will count all 8 addresses as being in use, in conformance with RIPE policy.
--Michael Dillon
Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "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. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827
participants (6)
-
Florian Weimer -
Jeffrey A. Williams -
Marco Hogewoning -
michael.dillon＠bt.com -
Shane Kerr -
Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet