[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Predicable IPv4 Run Out by Prefix Size

[Scott Leibrand]

Pete Templin wrote:
>
> I'm simply not following your suggestion of the numbers, which 
> includes looking at the spreadsheet you've provided.  I'll base my 
> discussions on the one quarter (1/4) ratio since that's what's written 
> into the Policy Proposal.
>
> Case study #1: ARIN has a /13 of space, also known as 524,288 
> addresses.  Four large-enough requests happen to be at the head of the 
> line, and based on the one-quarter ratio they're eligible for a /15 of 
> space per request.  Each request is issued a /15, also known as 
> 131,072 addresses.  These 524,288 addresses in four allocations would 
> wipe out the pool, not the 24 allocations that you present above.

If ARIN has a /13 of space, the first large-enough request to come in 
could get a /15 based on a 1/4 ratio.  That would take ARIN's space down 
to /14+/15, meaning that the second large-enough request could get a 
/16.  That leaves /14+/15+16, which means the next few also get a /16.  
Once the /14 gets broken up, leaving /15+16, then the next few requests 
can only get /17, until the /15 gets broken up, at which point it goes 
to /18, etc. etc. until you get to the minimum allocation size.
>
> Case study #2: ARIN has a /17 of space, also known as 32,768 
> addresses.  Four large-enough requests happen to be at the head of the 
> line, and based on the one-quarter ratio they're eligible for a /19 of 
> space per request.  Each request is issued a /19, also known as 8,192 
> addresses. These 32,768 addresses in four allocations would wipe out 
> the pool, not the 24 allocations that you present above.

Same deal.  First gets a /19, leaving /18+19, so next 4 get /20s, next 4 
after that get /21s, etc.

-Scott
>
> I acknowledge that current policy allows one large-enough request to 
> wipe out all available-at-the-moment free-pool IPv4 within ARIN's 
> bucket, and that distribution across more-than-one recipient is in the 
> interest of fairness, even though we don't know how yet best to 
> achieve some form of equitable fairness.  That said, this policy 
> doesn't appear to be achieving much of the desired goal; I suspect it 
> needs to be on the order of 6-10 bits (64-1024 allocations) before 
> we're really achieving "distribution".
>
> Pete
>
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.