[ppml] Summary of Trial Balloons for Dealing with IPv4 Address Countdown
Iljitsch van Beijnum
iljitsch at muada.com
Tue Apr 3 14:22:12 EDT 2007
- Previous message: [ppml] My view on IPv4 (was: Re: IPv4 wind-down)
- Next message: [ppml] Summary of Trial Balloons for Dealing with IPv4 AddressCountdown
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On 30-mrt-2007, at 23:34, Jim Weyand wrote: > I find myself struggling with how to convert the suggestions and > comments on this list into actual policy proposals. Perhaps it would be a good idea to see if we can agree on what our goals and assumptions are. An important question is whether it's a good idea to try and postpone the moment when the RIRs have to turn down requests for lack of free address space. Assuming we still have around five years, and that a great deal can be accomplished in that time, is it worth going through a lot of trouble to buy us a limited number of additional years? > 4) Several similar informal proposals to encourage recycling by > empowering ARIN to more actively police the use of IPv4 addresses by > various means > 6) An informal proposal to ask holders of unused address IPv4 > addresses to voluntarily return the addresses A "use it or lose it" policy would make sense. Large amounts of address space aren't visible on the global internet, so either people aren't using it at all, or they're only using it internally. If we set a deadline by which address space must be "in use" (hard to define) or it will be put at the end of the free list, this gives people who are using it for internal purposes a reasonable amount of time to move to something else. > 7) Several variants of informal proposals to start assigning > IPv6 > space with IPv4 > 8) An informal proposal to get endusers to demand access to IPv6 > networks by creating a media storm similar to Y2K. The depletion of IPv4 and the adoption of IPv6 are largely orthogonal in the short term. Having IPv6 doesn't mean you don't need IPv4 any more, not having IPv4 doesn't make IPv6 more useful. This is what I suggest: In my opinion, it's a problem that the RIRs are giving out extremely large blocks of address space to the world's largest ISPs. For instance, Softbank has a /8, Comcast got a /8 in two installments and French, Deutsche and British Telecom all have multi-million sized blocks. Even very large ISPs need some time to put these amounts of address space to use, so what happens is that at various intervals, new large blocks are requested, so the number of addresses given out in any particular year varies widely because one request can be as much as 5 to 10 % of the yearly world-wide use. So giving out large blocks makes making predictions harder. Another problem is that if and when business stalls, a good part of a large block will go unused. For both of these reasons, it's a good idea to limit the maximum block size that is given out *today*. When we start to run out of address space for real, this only gets worse, and we run the risk that a large request clears out the remaining address space in one go. To avoid this, we should adopt a policy where there is a maximum block size, and a minimum interval between obtaining address blocks. As the number of addresses left gets smaller, the maximum block size is reduced. For instance, we could make the maximum block size 2 million and the minimum interval 2 months. So if an ISP thinks they need 16 million addresses in a year, they'll have request 2 million, wait 2 months, request another 2 million and so on. In 3 or 4 years, the limit could be half a million, so someone needing 16 million addresses would only be able to get 6 x 1/2 million = 3 million. (Note that people who need smaller blocks still get what they need.) The effect is that an ISP who signs up 16 million new users each year will then have to share an IPv4 address over several users, where the number of users per address increases every year, rather than that in year X every user can get their own address and in year Y there's nothing left. The maximum block size could each year be set to (for instance) the next higher CIDR boundary of 0.1% of the remaining IPv4 address space. This policy has the important property of being predictable so people can plan rolling out new technologies to deal with the IPv4 address shortage in ways that fit their business. A problem would be that this works per-organization, so it favors smaller organizations over larger ones.
- Previous message: [ppml] My view on IPv4 (was: Re: IPv4 wind-down)
- Next message: [ppml] Summary of Trial Balloons for Dealing with IPv4 AddressCountdown
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the PPML mailing list