[ppml] PPML Digest, Vol 22, Issue 7

I have updated data that I don't think you have.  The spike in 05 is from Ive.
Look for free busy in a meet request for tomorrow

-----Original Message-----
From: "ppml-request at arin.net" <ppml-request at arin.net>
To: "ppml at arin.net" <ppml at arin.net>
Sent: 4/3/07 4:52 PM
Subject: PPML Digest, Vol 22, Issue 7

Send PPML mailing list submissions to
	ppml at arin.net

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	ppml-request at arin.net

You can reach the person managing the list at
	ppml-owner at arin.net

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of PPML digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: My view on IPv4 (was: Re:  IPv4 wind-down) (Michel Py)
   2. Re: My view on IPv4 (was: Re:  IPv4 wind-down) (G. Waleed Kavalec)
   3. Re: My view on IPv4 (was: Re:  IPv4 wind-down) (Jim Weyand)
   4. Re: My view on IPv4 (was: Re:  IPv4 wind-down) (Antonio Querubin)
   5. Re: My view on IPv4 (was: Re:  IPv4 wind-down)
      (Iljitsch van Beijnum)
   6. Re: My view on IPv4 (was: Re:  IPv4 wind-down) (Lee Dilkie)
   7. Re: Summary of Trial Balloons for Dealing with IPv4 Address
      Countdown (Iljitsch van Beijnum)
   8. Re: My view on IPv4 (was: Re:  IPv4 wind-down)
      (michael.dillon at bt.com)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2007 09:04:25 -0700
From: "Michel Py" <michel at arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us>
Subject: Re: [ppml] My view on IPv4 (was: Re:  IPv4 wind-down)
To: "Iljitsch van Beijnum" <iljitsch at muada.com>
Cc: ppml at arin.net
Message-ID:
	<DD7FE473A8C3C245ADA2A2FE1709D90B1C8D08 at server2003.arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us>
	
Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="us-ascii"

Hi Iljitsch,


>>> Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
>>> It will be the kind of NAT where a service provider puts 10,
>>> 100 or even 1000 customers behind a single IP address, and
>>> the number of usable TCP ports starts being a problem.

>> Michel Py wrote:
>> This is not as bad as it appears. I have some customers with
>> 100 to 300 PCs out of a single IP and I never saw the number
>> of simultaneous  ports above 1K out of a possible 64K.

> Isn't TCP TIME_WAIT 240 seconds? That means that you get to
> set up 64k / 240 = 273 new TCP sessions per second. When
> browsing the web, you can easily create several new sessions
> per second for short periods. Depending on the activity of
> the users, I'm expecting problems to occur somewhere between
> 100 and 1000 users behind a single IP address.

The way I understand it, the TCP TIME_WAIT situation you describe is not
relevant to a NAT box, and here's why: it was designed to prevent ghost
packets in the network to pollute a newly open TCP session with
irrelevant data on the same port number from an older connection.

Therefore, the NAT box should indeed keep track of the sessions in
TIME_WAIT state, but it does not mean it can't re-use the port for
another inside/outside NAT translation from another inside host to
another outside host, because then the ghost packets will not have the
correct pair and will be discarded at the NAT box, which is why
TIME_WAIT was designed to begin with.

To cause a problem, the situation you describe requires that all inside
hosts try to access the same outside server at the same time. 

Also, keep in mind that putting 16 times more users on a pool of 16 IP
addresses considerably increases the pool of IP/ports pairs available
for NAT translation. In a large NAT pool, the number of IP/ports pairs
in use tends to join the average number of established sessions per host
times the number of hosts (plus some overhead).

I maintain that a 1000:1 overload still is a rather conservative target.


> The simplest way to overcome NAT problems is to get IPv6
> through it and have the applications use IPv6. Microsoft
> is already doing this for some peer-to-peer stuff.

With no success. Although I have been accused many times of being an M$
zealot, frankly I can understand why some would prefer developing their
own NAT traversal mechanism instead of relying on MSN messenger servers.
It still is simpler to make an app x2NAT capable than to rewrite it for
IPv6 and deal with the uncertainties of Teredo.

I have seen Vista PCs from several OEMs coming out of the factory with
the IPv6 stack loaded, and in almost every case the factory Vista load
has been wiped out to get rid of all the annoying pieces of software
gunk (such as toolbars, useless utilities and so on) that PC makers like
to install. I regret to report that Teredo and the v6 stack are part of
this gunk, and that no corporate-installed Vista PC I have seen so far
has the IPv6 stack (when they don't wipe out Vista altogether and
install XP instead that is).


> [large snip of stuff I generally agree with]
> I think the psychological point of no return will be reached
> when the number of addresses left in the  IPv4 pool is equal
> to or lower than three times what was used in the previous year.

That is the one argument I don't buy and here's why: some have been
spreading serious FUD about the world coming to an end when the v4 space
is depleted, resulting in everyone stockpiling IPv4 addresses at all
levels in the food chain. End sites have requested more IPs than they
really need, and ISPs have allocated /28s and /27s without question to
small businesses who use only one IP just because they requested a
static one. There is a lot of IPv4 fat out there and unfortunately the
people to be convinced of migrating to v6 are v4-fat, partly because
they binged on v4 addresses before the supply ends.

For the time being, getting a little leaner still is way cheaper than
deploying v6; as long as the big players can live for a while on their
fat reserves, nothing's happening.


> My goal isn't IPv6 deployment (although I'm not dead set
> against seeing a thriving market for IPv6 consultancy...)

Hehehe I would never have guessed that ;-)


>>> Therefore, any policy that seeks to artifically avoid running out
>>> is harmful because it perpetuates an address starvation model.

>> And any policy that seeks to artificially accelerate the running  
>> out is suicide,

> Which is certainly not something I favor.

There have been some discussions about discreetly killing IPv4 in order
to deploy IPv6.

Michel.



------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2007 11:56:00 -0600
From: "G. Waleed Kavalec" <Kavalec at BSWA.com>
Subject: Re: [ppml] My view on IPv4 (was: Re:  IPv4 wind-down)
To: <ppml at arin.net>
Message-ID: <F6C97B366579DB49A5EEB4E1A3E99FC336176F at rome.bswa.com>
Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="iso-8859-1"

-----Original Message-----
From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of
michael.dillon at bt.com

I disagree. For instance Russia, a country which I am familiar with
having travelled there three times. Outside Moscow and St Petersburg,
few people speak a foreign language well enough to use it. For those
people, if a site isn't in Russian, then it practically does not exist.

--------------------

Mike

Have you ever used googles "translate this page" option?

Or http://babelfish.altavista.com/

?????????? connectivity ???????? ??????, ?? ?? ??????? ???? ?????.

(Global connectivity is slowed by language, but those barriers are going away.)


------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2007 13:37:47 -0400
From: "Jim Weyand" <jweyand at computerdata.com>
Subject: Re: [ppml] My view on IPv4 (was: Re:  IPv4 wind-down)
To: <ppml at arin.net>
Message-ID: <1582DCBFF968F044A9A910C0AB177C9012FFB3 at cliff.cdi.local>
Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="us-ascii"



- it's unfair that more than 50% of all IPv4 address space is held by  
US entities which then get to make a lot of money from them, while  
the developing world holds next to no address space and would have to  
buy it from richer countries

Can anybody document the 50% figure?  When I go to:
 http://www.arin.net/statistics/jointstats.pdf

It looks to me like ARIN has only assigned about 30% of the allocated
IPv4 space.


------------------------------

Message: 4
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2007 07:47:37 -1000 (HST)
From: Antonio Querubin <tony at lava.net>
Subject: Re: [ppml] My view on IPv4 (was: Re:  IPv4 wind-down)
To: Jim Weyand <jweyand at computerdata.com>
Cc: ppml at arin.net
Message-ID: <Pine.BSI.4.64.0704030740120.28055 at malasada.lava.net>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed

On Tue, 3 Apr 2007, Jim Weyand wrote:

> - it's unfair that more than 50% of all IPv4 address space is held by
> US entities which then get to make a lot of money from them, while
> the developing world holds next to no address space and would have to
> buy it from richer countries

Spending time and energy complaining about unfairness, hordeing, FUD over 
the end of days, etc. isn't very productive.  Nobody's gonna buy anything 
at scalper prices which can be gotten for much less through normal means. 
An IP address provides you presence on the net.  It doesn't have to be an 
IPv4 address.  Some countries have already figured this out...

Antonio Querubin
whois:  AQ7-ARIN


------------------------------

Message: 5
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2007 19:50:38 +0200
From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch at muada.com>
Subject: Re: [ppml] My view on IPv4 (was: Re:  IPv4 wind-down)
To: Jim Weyand <jweyand at computerdata.com>
Cc: ppml at arin.net
Message-ID: <D610F2C1-ACEF-4002-A4D9-1111B8FC11EB at muada.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed

On 3-apr-2007, at 19:37, Jim Weyand wrote:

> - it's unfair that more than 50% of all IPv4 address space is held by
> US entities which then get to make a lot of money from them, while
> the developing world holds next to no address space and would have to
> buy it from richer countries

> Can anybody document the 50% figure?  When I go to:
>  http://www.arin.net/statistics/jointstats.pdf

> It looks to me like ARIN has only assigned about 30% of the allocated
> IPv4 space.

That's between 1999 and 2006.

I regularly download the files the RIRs publish on their FTP sites  
and generate statistics from them at http://www.bgpexpert.com/ 
addrspace.php

If you go to that page it will tell you the number of addresses  
currently given out by IANA or the RIRs to end-users or ISPs:

2465.82 M

Fill in "US" under "Country" and it will say:

1379.23 M

This means that 55.93% of the address space currently in use is held  
by the US according to the RIRs.


------------------------------

Message: 6
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2007 14:11:20 -0400
From: Lee Dilkie <Lee at Dilkie.com>
Subject: Re: [ppml] My view on IPv4 (was: Re:  IPv4 wind-down)
To: ppml at arin.net
Message-ID: <461298C8.1080408 at Dilkie.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1


> - it's unfair that more than 50% of all IPv4 address space is held by  
> US entities which then get to make a lot of money from them, while  
> the developing world holds next to no address space and would have to  
> buy it from richer countries
>
>   
What's unfair is that the western world have spent trillions of their
own money developing everything from steam power to air travel to space
travel, advanced medicines and, yes, even the internet. And the
developing nations benefit from all that work by being able to take
advantage of the finished product without having had to foot the bill.

Now you think that somehow that's not enough, that the western nations
"owe" you even more than that? I think when western nations can tax
developing nations to support these projects, just like they taxed me,
then you can have a "fair" leg to stand on.

-lee


------------------------------

Message: 7
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2007 20:22:12 +0200
From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch at muada.com>
Subject: Re: [ppml] Summary of Trial Balloons for Dealing with IPv4
	Address	Countdown
To: Jim Weyand <jweyand at computerdata.com>
Cc: ppml at arin.net
Message-ID: <3D08044E-7626-4254-8988-672E59A055B6 at muada.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed

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.


------------------------------

Message: 8
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2007 21:54:04 +0100
From: <michael.dillon at bt.com>
Subject: Re: [ppml] My view on IPv4 (was: Re:  IPv4 wind-down)
To: <Kavalec at BSWA.com>, <ppml at arin.net>
Message-ID:
	<D03E4899F2FB3D4C8464E8C76B3B68B020626C at E03MVC4-UKBR.domain1.systemhost.net>
	
Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="US-ASCII"

> Have you ever used googles "translate this page" option?
> 
> Or http://babelfish.altavista.com/

Yes. They are both difficult to use unless you actually have a basic to
intermediate level of proficiency with the foreign language. I used
http://translation1.paralink.com a lot when I was learning Russian, but
it was most effective when I read the Russian text a SECOND time, after
reading the confused machine translation. In other words the machine
translation which was incomprehensible to a unilingual English speaker,
gave me enough verb and noun translations to help my mind sort out the
original sentence. 

> ?????????? connectivity ???????? ??????, ?? ?? ??????? ???? ?????.
> 
> (Global connectivity is slowed by language, but those 
> barriers are going away.)

Not quite. Somewhere along the path, your UNICODE (or other codeset) got
translated to ASCII question marks. I would guess that you wrote in
Russian because I see the same problem in a lot of MP3 tags.

Here is an interesting experiment for most of you. Go to
http://www.satka.ru and have a look around the site. How many of you
would have a problem if this whole town was inaccessible from the USA if
they decided to "borrow" some Earthlink IP addresses?

--Michael Dillon


------------------------------

_______________________________________________
PPML mailing list
PPML at arin.net
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml


End of PPML Digest, Vol 22, Issue 7
***********************************