[arin-ppml] Set aside round deux

Owen DeLong owen at delong.com
Mon Jul 26 17:00:17 EDT 2010


I did read it... A little math...

Let's assume you're trying to use this for NAT64 boxes... At an estimated 5,000 customers per NAT64
box (most people I've talked to are talking between 8,000 and 80,000 per box), to qualify for a /20
using a single /32 per NAT box, you need 4,096 NAT boxes or at least 80% of 20,480,000
which works out to 16,384,000 customers in order to justify a minimum allocation under this policy.

If you think that small providers have 16,000,000+ customers, we have radically different ideas
of what constitutes small.

Owen

On Jul 26, 2010, at 1:47 PM, Hannigan, Martin wrote:

> 
> 
> I’m not sure he read it close enough based on the off the cuff fear mongering. 
> 
> I think that it comes down mostly to this:
> 
> >> An applicant may provide ARIN with a thirty-month forecast of IPv4 address
> >> need. ARIN will reserve the requested size in compliance with Section 2 and
> >> 3. When a reservation forecast is approved by ARIN, the applicant will then
> >> be authorized to draw down from the forecast quarterly. Prior to requesting
> >> reserved addresses, applicant will provide documentation to ARIN that they
> >> have maintained utilization requirements for previous allocation. If
> >> applicant fails to meet utilization requirements for two consecutive
> >> quarters, ARIN will cancel the reservation and return unused addresses to
> >> the pool. 
> 
> Based on that, an entity would need to qualify for a /20 over a $long time span. The time span noted does not perfectly match up to CIDR boundaries FWIW, but it will when everything is settled. 
> 
> Qualifying for a /20 of transition address space over a 2 to 3 year period doesn’t exclude the little guys and coupling it to the same acceptable use for everyone seems to make it fair. In the case of someone who can’t qualify for roughly a /24 every quarter of $long time span, going to their upstream for help seems reasonable. In doing that we help to keep their costs down as well.
> 
> 
> 
> Best,
> 
> -M<
> 
> 
> 
> On 7/26/10 4:37 PM, "cja at daydream.com" <packetgrrl at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Owen,
>> 
>> So do you feel that this is bad all around or just the minimum allocation unit needs to be changed to something smaller?  Others out there?  What are your thoughts regarding a minimum/maximum allocation size for this last /8?  
>> 
>> ----Cathy
>> 
>> On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 2:31 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>>> Marty,
>>>         How do you expect anyone but the largest of the large and extra large
>>> organizations to qualify for a /20 of IPv4 space under this proposal?
>>> 
>>>         This is a really interesting way to attempt to reserve the last /8 for use
>>> only by the largest organizations ARIN serves, but, I really don't think that
>>> is good policy.
>>> 
>>> Owen
>>> 
>>> On Jul 26, 2010, at 1:22 PM, Hannigan, Martin wrote:
>>> 
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Hello PPML:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Since it seemed to have been very helpful to vet the global policy idea on
>>> > the list, I thought it might be helpful to use it to frame my non-support
>>> > for 109. This is, just like the last time, very raw, but I expect to solicit
>>> > some time during open policy hour to discuss a more polished version.
>>> >
>>> > A few points.
>>> >
>>> > - This idea takes us in the direction of actual transition
>>> > - Define an acceptable use list
>>> > - Seeks to address COSTS
>>> > - Levels the playing field between small and large
>>> > - Reserves an entire /8 for transition, not for business as usual
>>> > - Counters the high priced "market" that is emerging by deferring it's need
>>> >
>>> > May not get us all the way through, but every month that we can avoid
>>> > sending people to markets is a month of reduced costs IMHO. And it is about
>>> > costs at this point. It's a given that it is going to happen.
>>> >
>>> > Too soon for "for" or "against", but most definitely open to feedback. Don't
>>> > focus on the words, focus on the ideas. Feedback very much appreciated.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > --draft, group working comments removed for ease of read
>>> >
>>> > 1. Transition Pool
>>> >
>>> > ARIN will set-aside the final /8 allocated form the IANA to facilitate
>>> > transition from IPv4 to IPv6. The resulting "transition pool" will become
>>> > immediately available for allocations under this policy. This pool will be
>>> > known as the "transition pool".
>>> >
>>> > 2. Minimum and Maximum Allocation Unit
>>> >
>>> > The minimum allocation unit will be a /20. The maximum allocation unit will
>>> > be /15.
>>> >
>>> > 2. Allocation Method
>>> >
>>> > ARIN will determine and utilize the best method possible for allocations
>>> > with the goal of maximizing what can be allocated balanced by minimum
>>> > deaggregation.
>>> >
>>> > 3. Eligibility
>>> >
>>> > An applicant will become eligible to receive IPv4 addresses from this pool
>>> > when they meet the following requirements:
>>> >
>>> > 1. Applicant will provide a written plan detailing how the addresses will be
>>> > used and on what devices.
>>> >
>>> > 2. Previous allocations or assignments under this policy must continue to
>>> > meet the justification requirements of this policy.
>>> >
>>> > 3. Must have applied for, been approved, received and be utilizing an ARIN
>>> > allocated IPv6 allocation or assignment.
>>> >
>>> > 4. All allocations or assignments made under this policy must be efficiently
>>> > utilized to a rate of 80%.
>>> >
>>> > 5. Applicant must demonstrate that no other allocations or assignments that
>>> > they have received will meet their requirements.
>>> >
>>> > 6. Applicants must provide documentation that demonstrates that the
>>> > addresses received under this policy will be used only on dual stack devices
>>> > that will have both an IPv4 and IPv6 address that will both be reachable
>>> > natively.
>>> >
>>> > 7. Be in compliance with Section 4, Acceptable Use of Addresses.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > 4. Acceptable Use of Addresses
>>> >
>>> > 1. A single IPv4 /32 for providers to assign to 6 to 4 NAT gateways for each
>>> > each layer 3 contagious v6 only customer networks thereby enabling IPv4
>>> > connectivity for an IPv6-only customer networks. Customers must not have
>>> > available IPv4 addresses.
>>> >
>>> > 2. A single IPv4 /32 for providers to assign to 4 to 4 NAT gateways for each
>>> > each layer 3 contagious v6 customer networks to deploy IPv4 RFC-1918 in
>>> > addition to (and NOT instead of) IPv6 thereby enabling IPv4 connectivity for
>>> > an IPv6-only customer networks.. Customers must not have available IPv4
>>> > addresses.
>>> >
>>> > 3. Customer networks qualifying under 4.1 or 4.2 (above) may qualify for
>>> > additional IPv4 address to meet multi-homing traffic engineering needs or to
>>> > address stand-alone NAT devices as specified below:
>>> >
>>> > A. A single IPv4 /32 for each interconnect for each mult-homed layer 3
>>> > contiguous customer network that requires traffic engineering. For example a
>>> > network with two interconnects to a single upstream provider can get one
>>> > IPv4 /32 for each of their two interconnects, and distribute their internal
>>> > hosts between the two outside NAT addresses for traffic engineering.
>>> >
>>> > B. Customer networks that require stand-alone NAT devices (not integrated
>>> > into their CPE router) qualify for enough IPv4 addresses to number the
>>> > loopback addresses (if needed) for all edge routers that have one or more
>>> > connections to a transit provider, enough IPv4 addresses to number each of
>>> > the point-to-point links between those routers and their transit provider,
>>> > as well as the point to point links between those routers and directly
>>> > connected NAT appliances. As well as one IPv4 address for each of these
>>> > directly connected NAT appliances.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > 4. Loopback addresses for edge routers that have one or more connections to
>>> > transit providers and/or peers
>>> >
>>> > 5. Address for point to point links between edge routers and their transit
>>> > providers [why does it need to be unique v. 1918?] [that is an interesting
>>> > point... We use globally unique as a matter of not breaking routing by
>>> > accident. I have to think about if it would be generally acceptable to use
>>> > RFC-1918. Interesting question!]
>>> >
>>> > 7. A /32 for routers in a greenfield network that are dual stacked.
>>> > [redundant to 3/5?] [this is not redundant... In this case I need an IPv4
>>> > routerID to make BGP work. If I want to be a green-filed IPv6 transit
>>> > provider I need one IPv4 address for each router]
>>> >
>>> > 8. /32 for public facing name servers, NTP servers, SMTP servers and Web
>>> > servers which are dual stacked and reachable on IPv4 and IPv6 networks.
>>> >
>>> > 9. Dual stacked VPN aggregation ex. v6 -> v4 one IPv4 /32 per VPN aggregator
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > 5. Reservation Forecasting
>>> >
>>> > An applicant may provide ARIN with a thirty-month forecast of IPv4 address
>>> > need. ARIN will reserve the requested size in compliance with Section 2 and
>>> > 3. When a reservation forecast is approved by ARIN, the applicant will then
>>> > be authorized to draw down from the forecast quarterly. Prior to requesting
>>> > reserved addresses, applicant will provide documentation to ARIN that they
>>> > have maintained utilization requirements for previous allocation. If
>>> > applicant fails to meet utilization requirements for two consecutive
>>> > quarters, ARIN will cancel the reservation and return unused addresses to
>>> > the pool.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Example:
>>> >
>>> > Applicant applies to ARIN under this policy and submits a thirty-month
>>> > forecast requesting a /16. Using criteria established in the NRPM and this
>>> > policy, ARIN will determine if applicant is eligible and has need. If the
>>> > applicant meets the requirements for the allocation, they will reserve a
>>> > /16. The applicant will then be allocated 3/30th of the forecasted
>>> > requirement in a CIDR block or equivalent number of IPv4 addresses. ARIN
>>> > will round down allocations or assignments to the closest CIDR single block.
>>> > Rounding errors will be applied to the last allocation of the last quarter
>>> > of the thirty month period and allocated then.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > 6. Dual Stack Requirement
>>> >
>>> > Addresses from this pool may only be used on dual stack devices that are to
>>> > be reachable via both IPv4 and IPv6 networks.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > 7. Application Frequency
>>> >
>>> > Applicants may apply for address space from the transition pool once per
>>> > quarter. If an applicant has an existing thirty-month forecast that has been
>>> > approved by ARIN, they are ineligible to apply for more address space until
>>> > their reservation has been exhausted. If an applicant has had a reservation
>>> > cancelled due to policy compliance issues including utilization, they are
>>> > not eligble to apply for addresses.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > 8. Post Exhaustion Refresh
>>> >> From the point of the issuance of the final /8 from the IANA, ARIN will
>>> > dispose of all address space that it may receive using this policy.
>>> >
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > 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.
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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.
>> 
>> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20100726/28a9170d/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list