[ppml] Proposed Policy: Adding an HD ratio choice for new IPv4 allocations
Owen DeLong
owen at delong.com
Tue Feb 22 05:23:26 EST 2005
The correct solution is to replace the term ISP with the term LIR for
allocations and the term Organization for asignments.
Owen
--On Tuesday, February 22, 2005 13:43 +0900 Tom Vest <tvest at pch.net> wrote:
> The proposed language for 4.2.4.1 uses the terms "ISP" and "all previous
> allocations" to suggest how the denominator for the HD ratio should be
> calculated. However, "ISP" is not defined in the NPRM. This is not
> especially problematic for the current 4.2.4.1 language, which applies
> the HD ratio only to an institution's most recent allocation. However,
> does ARIN possess the means to make such calculations for established
> ISPs that have grown/changed through M&A, selective divestiture,
> implementation of new autonomous systems, etc.?
>
> Tom
>
> On Feb 18, 2005, at 3:04 AM, Member Services wrote:
>
>> Policy Proposal Name: Adding an HD ratio choice for new IPv4
>> allocations
>>
>> Author: Michael Dillon
>>
>> Policy term: permanent
>>
>> Policy statement:
>> That section 4.2.4.1 of the NPRM (Number Policy Resource Manual) be
>> replaced with the following text:
>>
>> 4.2.4.1. Utilization Efficiency
>>
>> ISPs must have efficiently utilized all previous allocations in order
>> to
>> receive additional space. This includes all space reassigned to their
>> customers. The reassignment information section of the ARIN ISP Network
>> Request Template should be completed for all address blocks that have
>> been
>> allocated to your organization. In the template, line 1b. Assigned:
>> information will be verified via SWIP/RWHOIS and 1c. Reserved: should
>> be
>> used to indicate internal network information. Please note that until
>> your
>> prior utilization is verified to meet the requirements of section
>> 4.2.4.1
>> and its subsections, ARIN can neither process nor approve a request for
>> additional addresses.
>>
>> 4.2.4.1.1. Capping the Utilization Percentage - In no case will an
>> organization be required to show greater than 80% utilization of their
>> most recent allocation.
>>
>> 4.2.4.1.2. Electing the use of HD Ratio - Any organization whose total
>> IPv4 allocation is equivalent to a /20 or more may choose to have
>> additional requests for IPv4 addresses evaluated using an HD (Host
>> Density) Ratio calculation to determine sufficient utilization instead
>> of
>> a fixed percentage threshold.
>>
>> 4.2.4.1.3. Simplified HD Ratio table - When electing to use the HD
>> ratio
>> calculation, the applicant may elect to use these simplified tables
>> rather
>> than calculating the actual ratios:
>>
>> Total Alloc. Total Perc.
>> < /20 80%
>>> = /20 and < /18 75%
>>> = /18 and < /16 70%
>>> = /16 and < /14 66%
>>> = /14 and < /12 62%
>>> = /12 and < /10 59%
>>> = /10 55%
>>
>> Recent Alloc. Recent Perc.
>> < /19 56%
>>> = /19 and < /18 51%
>>> = /18 and < /17 49%
>>> = /17 and < /16 46%
>>> = /16 and < /15 44%
>>> = /15 and < /14 42%
>>> = /14 40%
>>
>> In these tables the percentage columns refer to the percentage
>> utilization
>> of the address block represented by the first column.
>>
>> 4.2.4.1.3. HD ratio threshold for all previous allocations - All
>> requests
>> for additional IPv4 address space subject to the HD Ratio shall require
>> the efficient utilization of the sum total of all existing IPv4
>> allocations. The HD Ratio on the sum total of all existing IPv4
>> allocations must be greater than or equal to .966.
>>
>> 4.2.4.1.4. HD ratio threshold for the most recent allocation - In
>> addition, the HD ratio of the most recent IPv4 allocation must be
>> greater
>> than or equal to .930.
>>
>> 4.2.4.1.5. HD ratio calculation defined - The HD ratio is calculated as
>> log(utilized IPv4 addresses) divided by log(total addresses in all
>> previous IPv4 allocations). In this formula, log refers to the natural
>> logarithm.
>>
>> Rationale:
>>
>> The existing fixed 80% threshold does not recognize that address
>> management efficiency decreases for large address blocks and imposes an
>> unreasonable management overhead on larger organizations. The HD ratio
>> floating threshold makes allowance for hierarchical management. As
>> hierarchy increases in a network, the need for maintaining spare
>> addresses
>> in a larger number of address blocks requires an ISP to have a lower
>> overall utilization rate for addresses. This effect is caused by both
>> increasing depth in addressing hierarchy and the increased breadth
>> enabled
>> by the deeper hierarchy, e.g. larger number of PoPs. We cannot measure
>> depth and breadth of hierarchy directly so we approximate this by
>> measuring the total quantity of IP addresses allocated to the ISP.
>>
>> The existing fixed threshold imposes a limited growth rate on larger
>> ISPs
>> which is inconsistent with restraint of trade legislation in USA,
>> Canada
>> and other countries. This growth rate limit has been masked in previous
>> years by two factors. One is that many, many new ISPs were starting up
>> and
>> therefore the growth of the Internet was not limited by the growth
>> rate of
>> a single company. The second factor is that in the recent past, many
>> companies experienced shrinkage and churn. When the growth of new
>> business
>> required new IP addresses, they could either apply to ARIN or mine the
>> required addresses from these churned customers. Today we have a
>> situation
>> where many companies have cleaned up their internal inefficiencies and
>> the
>> Internet is growing once again, but the number of independent network
>> operators is much reduced. There is a real danger that the fixed
>> threshold
>> imposed by ARIN will, in fact, limit the ability of one or more network
>> operators to grow their Internet services.
>>
>> This limiting effect kicks in when an organization's rate of growth
>> exceeds their 6 month predictions and the time required to run internal
>> network change management processes is longer than the time required to
>> use up the last 20% of their most recent allocation. The Internet has
>> become a critical infrastructure in the world economy and prudent
>> network
>> management practices require that any change to a network should be
>> checked, tested and carefully rolled out during narrow change windows
>> which may be as little as 20 hours per week. Many smaller networks who
>> do
>> not provide mission critical network services can accommodate the fixed
>> threshold with little problems. However, ARIN's policies apply to all
>> organizations in the region regardless of business model, it is
>> important
>> for these policies to allow a variety of business models to compete on
>> a
>> level playing field.
>>
>> Because this requires ISP to make fundamental changes in their
>> addressing
>> process it is made entirely optional. There are three possibilities. An
>> ISP can do everything in the same way as they always have and 4.2.4.1.1
>> ensures that they continue to adhere to ARIN's policies. An ISP can
>> elect
>> to apply the HD ratio to their address management systems by using the
>> percentage tables from 4.2.4.1.3. At any point in time an ISP needs to
>> be
>> concerned with only two table entries, and this should be easy to
>> incorporate into percentage-based management systems. Or, an ISP can
>> elect
>> to implement the HD ratio formula into their management systems and use
>> the same framework for both IPv6 and IPv4 allocations.
>>
>> RIPE will be discussing a similar proposal from Alain Bidron of France
>> Telecom at their meeting in Stockholm May 2 - 6, 2005. In Europe, the
>> largest ISPs are telecom companies and are members of the ETNO
>> (European
>> Telecom Network Operators Association). The ETNO has recently
>> published an
>> expert opinion document in which they strongly support applying the HD
>> ratio to IPv4 addresses. This document is available in PDF format at
>> this
>> URL
>> <http://www.etno.be/pp/EC064%20-
>> %20NANI%20EC%20on%20IPv4%20AD%20ratio.pdf>.
>>
>> The HD ratio was proposed as a way to determine allocation usage
>> thresholds for IPv6 address allocations. For more details on this,
>> please
>> refer to RFC 3194 <http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc3194.html>. There is
>> some
>> detailed background discussion about applying the HD ratio to IPv4
>> allocations in a proposal by Paul Wilson posted to the APNIC mailing
>> list
>> on Aug 7, 2003
>> http://www.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-policy/archive/2003/08/
>> msg00000.html
>> and he made a presentation of this to last year's RIPE 48 meeting in
>> Amsterdam. PDF slides of his presentation are here
>> <http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-48/presentations/ripe48-ap-hd-
>> ratio.pdf>.
>> Paul and some others use the term 'AD ratio' to refer to the HD ratio
>> when
>> it is applied to IPv4 addresses. I have kept the original term used in
>> ARIN's IPv6 policy for the sake of simplicity.
>>
>> Timetable for implementation: 30 days after ratification by the board
>
--
If this message was not signed with gpg key 0FE2AA3D, it's probably
a forgery.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20050222/a0392149/attachment.sig>
More information about the ARIN-PPML
mailing list