Orbit

Leo and all,

Why not face the facts, IPv6 which was intended to supplant IPv4, ain't selling. IMHO, for good reasons. So now that IPv4 is nearly exausted, the scramble for alternitives has commenced. For me, this is a huge opertunity which we are already capitalizing upon. We have plenty of IPv8 space avaliable, and demand is on the rise!

Leo Vegoda wrote:

On 16/07/2008 6:31, "David Woodgate" David.Woodgate@telstra.net wrote:

[...]

...

My reasoning for this is thus:

• The proposal suggests that all new and existing LIRs would get only

one /22 from the last /8

• There were ~1600 APNIC members at the start of 2008
• I don't know the number of ISPs behind the NIRs, but I'm guessing ~1000 ?
• APNIC membership grew ~200 in 2007, so allow for growth of ~1000

ISPs over 5 years Therefore, there may be only ~4000 LIRs in the Asia-Pacific over the next 5 years.

Is past membership growth a good guide here? If existing members cannot get additional IPv4 address space there will presumably be additional demand for APNIC membership from networks that were previously happy to take a block of PA space from an upstream ISP.

Regards,

Leo Vegoda

•          sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy           *
  

sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy

Regards,

Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln

"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827

At the very least, it would have implications for routing table growth & aggregation efficiency.

given the lack of beneficial effect of current policies on routing table garbage, i am not sure we can say much here that speaks more loudly than a routing table well over half full of /24s. deaggregation seems to be driven by traffic engineering, false security, and multihoming not policy.

randy

12 million addresses represents 12 million people (or more, using NAT) who could otherwise be connected to the Internet.

At 10:01 AM 17/07/2008, James Spenceley wrote:

David,

On 16/07/2008, at 2:31 PM, David Woodgate wrote:

...

The proposal allows for 16,384 LIRs to receive allocations from the last /8, but if there are only 4,000 LIRs, then 75% of the /8 would remain unused (or about 12 million addresses).

... and this is a bad thing ?

Lets just imagine a world where you can't get any IPv4 addresses, you have a great new business idea, some very willing transit providers and customers, but sorry, you're too late, missed the boat, should have started when us lucky folk with lots of space did. Don't worry you'll still be able to sell to the IPv6 Internet, but just nothing on IPv4.

David you are talking about giving it all out, every last bit and doing it as fast as possible. Why ? So those of us with *lots* of address space can get a little bit more each, rushing towards a specific date and time where you are either an US or a THEM.

Why shouldn't we keep 75% in reserve, I would hope that new organizations could still get small allocations of IPv4 years after IANA exhaustion.

My view of a successful result, "many" years into the future, new organization can still get IPv4 space from the final /8, but no-one actually wants it as its all v6 anyway.

Lets not rush to give out the absolute last of a critical resource.

-- James

The stated purpose of APNIC, according to the by-laws, is "to provide the service of allocating and registering Internet resources for the purpose of enabling communications. (etc.)..."

prop-062 as written seems likely to leave the majority of a /8 - millions of addresses - unused on the basis that there *might be* new businesses arising to claim them. Against that, the current forecasts make it clear that those addresses would almost certainly be deployed in the active Internet under existing policies.

APNIC is expected to distribute the addresses allocated to it by IANA for **use in the Internet**. I claim that withholding addresses without a clear timeframe of usage does not meet that expectation - but this is what prop-062 would be likely to do, and in doing so would work *against* APNIC's objectives.

The question was also asked "So we've given up on IPv6 altogether?". Certainly not, and I trust that everyone in the industry is working hard to enable IPv6 as quickly as possible. However, prop-062 would most likely be applicable in 2011 (if G. Huston's forecasts are right), and I imagine that even with our best combined efforts that there may not be universal access to IPv6 by then. If that's the case, why should we deny Internet connectivity to millions of people for all of the time from 2011 until IPv6 is completely deployed, when we could connect them in 2011?

It's unfortunate that IPv4 addresses will run out, but unused IPv4 addresses will not help either.

There indeed may be good reasons why *some* IPv4 addresses should be reserved for potential future applications - for example, a hypothetical technical application where some seed IPv4 addresses enabled IPv6 deployment. Such an application would truly enable communications, and so be consistent with APNIC's objectives. But prop-062 is not one of those applications, and I doubt whether any application would require an entire /8 for that purpose.

I therefore *do not* support prop-062 as written, on the grounds outlined above and in previous emails.

Regards,

David Woodgate

Hi Jeff,

You've been a little inconsistent in your previous recommendations, so I be grateful if you'd clarify...

If prop-062 is rejected, then when the IPv4 free pool is exhausted, how would you suggest that new, would-be network operators arrange to connect to the current (i.e., IPv4-mandatory) Internet? In the past you have variously recommended:

1) IPv8: http://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-policy/archive/2008/07/msg00017.h...

2) IPv9: http://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/apnic-talk/archive/2004/07/msg00002.h... http://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/apnic-talk/archive/2004/07/msg00003.h...

3) A magical new wireless addressing/routing scheme: http://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/apnic-talk/archive/2004/03/msg00003.h...

Would you suggest that new entrants seek comfort in one of those alternative solutions?

All teasing aside, if you truly think that the current RIR management is a threat to incumbent operators, how do you think that all future, would-be network operators are going to feel if something like prop-062 is not approved? Who do you think they're going to identify as the cause of the manifestly "dangerous situation" if non- substitutable IPv4 address resources are only available from institutions that regard them as either actual competitors or competitors-in-waiting? Or do you think it would be okay last RIR PA/ initial or PI recipient is also the last "provider independent" network?

If you have a plausible alternative I'd love to hear about it.

TV

On Jul 17, 2008, at 1:52 AM, Jeffrey A. Williams wrote:

David and all,

Very good review and determination to your decision. I fully agree.

I would further add that given the centric view towards migrating to IPv6 under questionable allocation policies, the IANA and RIR's seem to be more interested in political positioning rather than managing IP address space in a manner that best serves the community in which such is supposed to serve. As such, and still, the leadership associated and responsible for this overreaching attitude represents a potentially if not eminent dangerous situation to ecommerce and non-commercial access accordingly.

David Woodgate wrote:

...

The stated purpose of APNIC, according to the by-laws, is "to provide the service of allocating and registering Internet resources for the purpose of enabling communications. (etc.)..."

prop-062 as written seems likely to leave the majority of a /8 - millions of addresses - unused on the basis that there *might be* new businesses arising to claim them. Against that, the current forecasts make it clear that those addresses would almost certainly be deployed in the active Internet under existing policies.

APNIC is expected to distribute the addresses allocated to it by IANA for **use in the Internet**. I claim that withholding addresses without a clear timeframe of usage does not meet that expectation - but this is what prop-062 would be likely to do, and in doing so would work *against* APNIC's objectives.

The question was also asked "So we've given up on IPv6 altogether?". Certainly not, and I trust that everyone in the industry is working hard to enable IPv6 as quickly as possible. However, prop-062 would most likely be applicable in 2011 (if G. Huston's forecasts are right), and I imagine that even with our best combined efforts that there may not be universal access to IPv6 by then. If that's the case, why should we deny Internet connectivity to millions of people for all of the time from 2011 until IPv6 is completely deployed, when we could connect them in 2011?

It's unfortunate that IPv4 addresses will run out, but unused IPv4 addresses will not help either.

There indeed may be good reasons why *some* IPv4 addresses should be reserved for potential future applications - for example, a hypothetical technical application where some seed IPv4 addresses enabled IPv6 deployment. Such an application would truly enable communications, and so be consistent with APNIC's objectives. But prop-062 is not one of those applications, and I doubt whether any application would require an entire /8 for that purpose.

I therefore *do not* support prop-062 as written, on the grounds outlined above and in previous emails.

Regards,

                                           David Woodgate

•          sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management  
  

policy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy

Regards,

Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln

"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827

•          sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management  
  

policy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy

On 17/07/2008, at 12:59 PM, David Woodgate wrote:

12 million addresses represents 12 million people (or more, using NAT) who could otherwise be connected to the Internet.

So we've given up on IPv6 altogether? Should we be reclaiming address space from all those ISPs out there who it would seem are wasting valuable IPv4 space by not NATing their customers?

While it is debatable how much space needs to be put aside for new entrants late in the IPv4 game, what is not debatable is the uneven distribution that will occur when we first start using that last /8.

For larger LIRs (large incumbents!) this is not a problem as they will be on the beneficial side of this uneven, and unfair, distribution. Large LIRs will be able to justify large blocks of this large space based on current allocation policies, at the expense of new smaller players. Smoothing this uneven distribution requires that this last /8 is held in reserve with vastly different allocation policies to that in place now.

Cheers, Jonny.

On Jul 17, 2008, at 7:39 AM, Geoff Huston wrote:

Jonny Martin wrote:

...

Smoothing this uneven distribution requires that this last /8 is held in reserve with vastly different allocation policies to that in place now.

Such as assertion prompts the obvious question: Why is this _required_?

If the current address distribution policy framework is "unfair" then why wait until the current allocation framework is effectively exhausted before attempting to change it? And given that the current allocation framework allocates addresses to any applicant on the basis of demonstrated need, then its difficult to understand precisely what "unfairness" means within the current policy framework.

Changing the allocation policies of this "last" address block is something that deserves some thought. It seems that the proposals all advocate some form of rationing of the resource among the applicants.

Beneficiaries of any last block rationing scheme obviously may regard the outcome as "fair" (although if they get allocated less than they believe they need I'm not sure that even they would agree that it was "fair"), while those who are not beneficiaries would obviously feel that such measures are "unfair". So this does not really look like an exercise in "fairness" does it? This appears to me to be more like an exercise in implementing particular industry policies that make certain distinctions between industry actors.

Hi Geoff,

You are of course correct; this proposal envisions a kind of industry policy, just as the status quo envisions a kind of industry policy. So your assertion of that fact doesn't really amount to much of a counterargument, unless you want to claim that the exhaustion of the unallocated IPv4 pool is not really a significant change.

Now, in general, I'd make the observation that its not easy to engineer particular industry outcomes using only address allocation policies as the mechanism to achieve them.

Engineering specific outcomes is not a goal. IP address policy can only affect IP address distribution outcomes. IP address distribution outcomes *do* matter, I think you would agree... Isn't that why there are five RIRs today rather than one global source?

If your concern is barriers to entry in this market and the issues related to economies of scale, the discipline of competition and the impetus of innovation, it seems like a tough ask that you use address distribution policies as the means of implementation of industry policy. There is

This is a red herring. To repeat, IP address policy can only affect IP address distribution outcomes. There seems to be a pretty well established global consensus that terms of access to "public", globally useful IP address resources can influence outcomes, even if they do not *determine* them exclusively. I'd even venture that that influence is why people care about IP address policies.

also a considerable risk that there may be a collection of unanticipated outcomes. I would not normally advocate the wisdom of putting the address community in the hot seat of determination of mainstream telecommunication policies, particularly so given that a more conventional approach is to use public policies and the associated legislative, regulatory and taxation framework at national levels to achieve desired industry and social outcomes, if thats the underlying agenda here.

Another red herring. Most previous and current existing *regional* address policies do not have any special or direct effect or conflict on national policy prerogatives or industry outcomes; there's no reason to assume that a few more/similar changes in regional policies would be any different.

For what it's worth, I support this proposal :-)

TV

prop-62 tries to give one suggestion as to what we should do with this "precious" last /8 that APNIC will receive if prop-55 is approved. I'm sure other folks will come up with other ideas, and I'm sure some folks will be quite happy with the first come first served that we have now.

And the problem is that in attempting to introduce a new distribution system that performs some form of rationing we need to look at the effects of rationing. Rationing tends to be a highly ineffectual distribution system - the goods remain 'cheap' but they are scarce. Rationing encourages hoarding as a natural reaction from the consumer. Rationing tends to encourage secondary markets where the same goods are priced according to their scarcity value. Because of the effects of hoarding, the secondary markets tend to operate at a level of scarcity premium far in excess of the actual relative scarcity level.

Another approach is to perform discriminatory distribution, where the goods are available only on a selective basis to certain parties who qualify, and not to others. In this case the issue is that those with the greatest need, expressable as 'ability to pay' may not be the same as those who receive the goods. Two problems are overtly apparent with such a system. By selectively meeting the needs of some consumers and not others you are making social policies - or in this context you are making industry policies. I have my doubts that this group is the appropriate group to determine such policies and implement them through address distribution practices - conventionally this is undertaken at a national level through legislatures and implemented through regulation. Secondly the practice tends to encourage secondary markets where the same goods are priced according to their scarcity value, and again the secondary markets operate at a distorted price level for much the same reasons as the rationing scheme.

Perhaps the issue here is one of illustrating that no matter how we attempt to impose rationing or selective distribution of this "final /8" as proposed in prop-055 we encounter these issues. There is an argument drawn from economic theory that no form of rationing or discriminatory distribution is efficient in terms of the outcomes of such a distribution function. This leads to the corollary that while reserving this last /8 in prop-055 feels emotionally like a good thing to do in order to provide some form of "safeguard" against some unspecified future event, the problem is that we really are finding it difficult to augment this emotional thought with a rational and sensible means of actually using this resource effectively that avoids the outcomes referred to above.

regards,

Geoff

On Jul 21, 2008, at 4:30 PM, Geoff Huston wrote:

...

prop-62 tries to give one suggestion as to what we should do with this "precious" last /8 that APNIC will receive if prop-55 is approved. I'm sure other folks will come up with other ideas, and I'm sure some folks will be quite happy with the first come first served that we have now.

And the problem is that in attempting to introduce a new distribution system that performs some form of rationing we need to look at the effects of rationing. Rationing tends to be a highly ineffectual distribution system - the goods remain 'cheap' but they are scarce.

Hi Geoff,

May I suggest an alternate interpretation? IPv4 addresses may be scarce, but IP addresses in general are not -- in fact if one considers (IPv4+IPv6) to be the actual pool, then they are fabulously abundant. That said, the *only* practical way to recognize or unlock this "true abundance" is if some small quantity of IPv4 remains available to every future IPv6 taker, at least ever one that emerges for the next few years -- or until such time that than a "pure IPv6" network faces no greater risk of experiencing reachability problems than an equivalent IPv4 network.

On this interpretation, there is no new distribution system, no new rationing arrangement, and no new efficiency concerns.

Rationing encourages hoarding as a natural reaction from the consumer.

In this scenario, who would be the consumer? If it is competitive private suppliers of IPv4 address space, who would be unwilling to sell IPv4 in new entrant-sized chunks on terms that would be competitive with the proxied/hybrid IPv4/IPv6 networks envisioned by prop-062-v001, then where is the harm? As a result of the proposal under discussion, more new entrants move more quickly to number the vast majority of their resources with IPv6 rather than with backward- looking IPv4. I suppose one could argue that other incumbent IPv4- based networks that are both unwilling to grow via IPv6, and also unwilling to pay the "hoarding-adjusted" prices demanded by their peers could be harmed... is that your implication?

Rationing tends to encourage secondary markets where the same goods are priced according to their scarcity value.

Absence of rationing also produces that result, does it not?

Because of the effects of hoarding, the secondary markets tend to operate at a level of scarcity premium far in excess of the actual relative scarcity level.

Okay, so the analysis above is not far off. I look forward to further clarification!

Another approach is to perform discriminatory distribution, where the goods are available only on a selective basis to certain parties who qualify, and not to others. In this case the issue is that those with the greatest need, expressable as 'ability to pay' may not be the same as those who receive the goods. Two problems are overtly apparent with such a system. By selectively meeting the needs of some consumers and not others you are making social policies - or in this context you are making industry policies. I have my doubts that this group is the appropriate group to determine such policies and implement them through address distribution practices - conventionally this is undertaken at a national level through legislatures and implemented through regulation. Secondly the practice tends to encourage secondary markets where the same goods are priced according to their scarcity value, and again the secondary markets operate at a distorted price level for much the same reasons as the rationing scheme.

Perhaps the issue here is one of illustrating that no matter how we attempt to impose rationing or selective distribution of this "final /8" as proposed in prop-055 we encounter these issues. There is an argument drawn from economic theory that no form of rationing or discriminatory distribution is efficient in terms of the outcomes of such a distribution function. This leads to the corollary that while reserving this last /8 in prop-055 feels emotionally like a good thing to do in order to provide some form of "safeguard" against some unspecified future event, the problem is that we really are finding it difficult to augment this emotional thought with a rational and sensible means of actually using this resource effectively that avoids the outcomes referred to above.

I think the interpretation described above, of the proposed IPv6 reservation as a *technical* mechanism to "unlock" the true abundance of the total pool of public IPv4 + IPv6 addresses is, at least, equally valid and compelling -- and far more practical -- then the alternative view that it is covert social or industrial policy. It is perfectly consistent with the rationale that has been in place for over a decade, i.e., that public address resource allocation rules represent nothing more than the administrative superstructure required in order for the address resources to fulfill the purpose(s) for which they were designed. In other words, if it wasn't social engineering before, it's not not.

One might argue that it was, in fact, was social engineering all along -- but the precedent is there nonetheless.

Best,

Tom

Hi David,

David Woodgate said the following on 22/7/08 14:10:

My main problem is that prop-062 seems to risk locking up the majority of the last /8, and therefore does not share it at all, let alone in a fair and equitable fashion.

I don't see how it is locking up the majority of the final /8. Would you please explain this.

If the tying of the allocation size to APNIC's minimum allocation at the time the allocation is requested is causing some concern, would you perhaps explain what might be a more useful quantity to choose, and why.

I'd be more sympathetic to a proposal which:

• Was more aligned with the LACNIC proposal - that is, it reserved a

smaller amount of space (the LACNIC proposal only specifies a /12) for *only* new businesses, based on a reasonable demand forecast model.

LACNIC's new policy applies to a /12 when LACNIC can no longer get address space from the IANA. There is no reason why something like this cannot be proposed for the APNIC region.

The authors' goal for prop-062 was to propose something constructive assuming the success of prop-055. If prop-055 fails, I see no need for prop-062. But I would then agree there would be need for a LACNIC style /12 policy.

• Considered reservations on the basis of associations between IPv4

allocations and IPv6 deployment or other technical requirements - an example (but not the only possible idea) is ARIN proposal 2008-5 (authored by Alain Durand)

Again, no reason why this cannot be proposed for the APNIC region.

• Identified that any part of the /8 not covered by these

reservations would be available for demand-based allocation under the APNIC's normal allocation policies.

Which reservations does this point refer to?

The only reservation made in prop-062 is for a /16 for future unforseen needs - and when the remainder of the final /8 is used, then the /16 would also be available for distribution.

philip --

David and all,

I have been following along recently silently. Now I feel again compelled to respond.

Regardless of what policy for the user/allocation of the remaining IPv4 addresses, it would be wise to conserve them closely unless or until there has been, 1.) a reclamation of already unassinged IPv4 address space, and 2.) that there has been a significant increase in migration to IPv6, and/or 3.) a increasn are respect by the RIR's, LIR's, and others for IPv8 if such is what they desire.

David Woodgate wrote:

At 03:57 pm 27/07/08, Philip Smith wrote:

...

Hi David,

Hi Philip,

...

David Woodgate said the following on 22/7/08 14:10:

...

My main problem is that prop-062 seems to risk locking up the majority of the last /8, and therefore does not share it at all, let alone in a fair and equitable fashion.

I don't see how it is locking up the majority of the final /8. Would you please explain this.

prop-062 allows for 16,000+ LIRs to each get a minimum /22 allocation. As discussed in a previous email, it seems hard to justify even 4,000 LIRs over the next few years; I'd suggest that 8,000 LIRs in the Asia-Pacific seems unlikely within 10 years. That would seem to leave up to 8,000-12,000 * /22s unclaimed for a long time. But - if I'm reading it correctly - prop-062 doesn't seem to suggest that anything else would be done with this unclaimed space, and therefore it won't be used during that time; that is, the space is "locked up" and unused.

...

If the tying of the allocation size to APNIC's minimum allocation at the time the allocation is requested is causing some concern, would you perhaps explain what might be a more useful quantity to choose, and why.

Actually, I think your question highlights the paradox of an "even distribution principle" as suggested by this proposal:

• If you try to distribute a /8 evenly across current and forecast

LIRs, then this will make the assumption that all LIRs will need this distribution, and this implicitly abandons the principle of distribution according to demonstrated demand. And if you abandon that principle, then address space is likely to be wasted unnecessary allocations.

• But if you maintain a requirement of demonstrated demand, and only

allow a single allocation from the last /8 to LIRs of size

      { (Addresses in /8) / (No. current and forecast LIRs) },

then you will almost certainly *not* allocate all of that /8 space because the demand won't be able to be demonstrated by some LIRs, which will then leave addresses from the /8 needlessly unassigned (because the policy would stop allocation of addresses to LIRs that *could* use the addresses, but need more than the uniform allocation to do so).

...

...

I'd be more sympathetic to a proposal which:

• Was more aligned with the LACNIC proposal - that is, it reserved

a smaller amount of space (the LACNIC proposal only specifies a /12) for *only* new businesses, based on a reasonable demand forecast model.

LACNIC's new policy applies to a /12 when LACNIC can no longer get address space from the IANA. There is no reason why something like this cannot be proposed for the APNIC region.

The authors' goal for prop-062 was to propose something constructive assuming the success of prop-055. If prop-055 fails, I see no need for prop-062. But I would then agree there would be need for a LACNIC style /12 policy.

I don't see why if prop-055 succeeds that the accompanying proposal needs to specify the usage of the entire last /8 - surely such a proposal only needs to identify the usage and reservation of as much address space out of the last /8 as is *necessary* for designated "special purposes", and could say that the remainder would be allocated by normal request processes.

...

...

• Considered reservations on the basis of associations between IPv4

allocations and IPv6 deployment or other technical requirements - an example (but not the only possible idea) is ARIN proposal 2008-5 (authored by Alain Durand)

Again, no reason why this cannot be proposed for the APNIC region.

...

• Identified that any part of the /8 not covered by these

reservations would be available for demand-based allocation under the APNIC's normal allocation policies.

Which reservations does this point refer to?

I meant the reservations that might arise in a hypothetically revised draft from the first two points I suggested: i.e. a smaller LACNIC-style draft, and any technology-based reservations; I doubt such reservations would cover an entire /8.

...

philip

Regards,

                             David

•          sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy           *
  

sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy

Regards,

Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln

"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827

Thanks, Geoff - this is useful information for the discussion.

It seems to confirm that the likelihood of getting to 8,000 LIRs in the next 10 years is very unlikely. (And I suspect that not all of the 4,403 LIRs to whom allocations have been made by APNIC would be active now.)

Regards,

David

At 03:13 PM 28/07/2008, Geoff Huston wrote:

...

...

David Woodgate said the following on 22/7/08 14:10:

...

My main problem is that prop-062 seems to risk locking up the majority of the last /8, and therefore does not share it at all, let alone in a fair and equitable fashion.

I don't see how it is locking up the majority of the final /8. Would you please explain this.

prop-062 allows for 16,000+ LIRs to each get a minimum /22 allocation. As discussed in a previous email, it seems hard to justify even 4,000 LIRs over the next few years; I'd suggest that 8,000 LIRs in the Asia-Pacific seems unlikely within 10 years. That would seem to leave up to 8,000-12,000 * /22s unclaimed for a long time. But - if I'm reading it correctly - prop-062 doesn't seem to suggest that anything else would be done with this unclaimed space, and therefore it won't be used during that time; that is, the space is "locked up" and unused.

you make the claim that:

...

"it seems hard to justify even 4,000 LIRs over the next few years; I'd suggest that 8,000 LIRs in the Asia-Pacific seems unlikely within 10 years

Here's some historical data that may be useful in the context of this particular aspect of the discussion

APNIC publish an "extended" version of the daily stats file (ftp://ftp.apnic.net/pub/stats/apnic/delegated-apnic-extended-latest")

The last field in each row is a code for the end entity recipient of the address allocation or assignment, or approximately "LIR" in your terminology.

Now there is some small uncertainty in the figures as at times the NIR code is used instead, but overall heres the Ipv4 allocation record for APNIC since 2000, based on the numbers in that published file

year new repeat cumulative count 2000 94 432 2856 2001 86 430 2942 2002 83 339 3025 2003 115 425 3140 2004 120 570 3260 2005 216 617 3476 2006 253 786 3729 2007 394 745 4123 2008 280 429 4403

i.e. in 2007 APNIC made 394 IPv4 address allocations to "new" LIRs and 745 allocations to LIRs who had already previously received an address allocation. Overall APNIC appears to have made allocations / assignments to 4,403 LIRs since its inception, and some 1,547 new LIRs have been recorded since 1 Jan 2000 (i.e the last 8.5 years)

regards,

Geoff

Given the stakes involved, and the eminently plausible outcome that some small quantity of IPv4 may continue to be both non-substitutable and non-optional for independent operations for a very long time to come -- much longer than ten years -- AND the fact that there will no way to remedy the situation if your assumptions about the time-to- tipping point turn out to be mistaken, wouldn't it be prudent to plan in a way that preserves as much flexibility as possible for an unknown future? As Randy noted, the run rate for sub-/8s is often measured in days... Is it really worth continuing on a course that everyone knows is destined to end for a few days more, at the price of giving up much freedom to adjust to unknown/changing circumstances in the future?

No reductio ad absurdum reactions please -- the price of this policy as written is a few lost *days* of status quo allocation activity, nothing more.

TV

On Jul 28, 2008, at 8:31 AM, David Woodgate wrote:

Thanks, Geoff - this is useful information for the discussion.

It seems to confirm that the likelihood of getting to 8,000 LIRs in the next 10 years is very unlikely. (And I suspect that not all of the 4,403 LIRs to whom allocations have been made by APNIC would be active now.)

Regards,

                                    David

At 03:13 PM 28/07/2008, Geoff Huston wrote:

...

...

...

David Woodgate said the following on 22/7/08 14:10:

...

My main problem is that prop-062 seems to risk locking up the majority of the last /8, and therefore does not share it at all, let alone in a fair and equitable fashion.

I don't see how it is locking up the majority of the final /8. Would you please explain this.

prop-062 allows for 16,000+ LIRs to each get a minimum /22 allocation. As discussed in a previous email, it seems hard to justify even 4,000 LIRs over the next few years; I'd suggest that 8,000 LIRs in the Asia-Pacific seems unlikely within 10 years. That would seem to leave up to 8,000-12,000 * /22s unclaimed for a long time. But - if I'm reading it correctly - prop-062 doesn't seem to suggest that anything else would be done with this unclaimed space, and therefore it won't be used during that time; that is, the space is "locked up" and unused.

you make the claim that:

...

"it seems hard to justify even 4,000 LIRs over the next few years; I'd suggest that 8,000 LIRs in the Asia-Pacific seems unlikely within 10 years

Here's some historical data that may be useful in the context of this particular aspect of the discussion

APNIC publish an "extended" version of the daily stats file (ftp://ftp.apnic.net/pub/stats/apnic/delegated-apnic-extended- latest")

The last field in each row is a code for the end entity recipient of the address allocation or assignment, or approximately "LIR" in your terminology.

Now there is some small uncertainty in the figures as at times the NIR code is used instead, but overall heres the Ipv4 allocation record for APNIC since 2000, based on the numbers in that published file

year new repeat cumulative count 2000 94 432 2856 2001 86 430 2942 2002 83 339 3025 2003 115 425 3140 2004 120 570 3260 2005 216 617 3476 2006 253 786 3729 2007 394 745 4123 2008 280 429 4403

i.e. in 2007 APNIC made 394 IPv4 address allocations to "new" LIRs and 745 allocations to LIRs who had already previously received an address allocation. Overall APNIC appears to have made allocations / assignments to 4,403 LIRs since its inception, and some 1,547 new LIRs have been recorded since 1 Jan 2000 (i.e the last 8.5 years)

regards,

Geoff

•          sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management  
  

policy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy

Hi David,

Thanks for the comments; additional responses inline.

On Jul 29, 2008, at 8:18 AM, David Woodgate wrote:

Tom,

A permanently unused address does not contribute to the Internet community; any reservation of the remaining addresses must have a deliberate purpose, and have clear criteria for when and how they will be used.

I agree entirely; in fact I would say that your assertion is perfectly consistent with the conservation policies and practices that have been applied to date, and which would continue under prop-062-v001.

It may be true that a /8 is allocated within a few months at the current rate of consumption, but it still enables connection of 16 million people (or more with NAT) to the Internet. While I agree that 16 million is a very small proportion of the population in a region with 2 - 3 billion people, it is still 16 million people nevertheless.

Okay.

So, in a scenario where IPv6 is not available universally within 10 years for some reason (which I hope will not be the case), what would be valid reasons for making those 16 million people wait for connectivity? That is, what would justify reserving addresses for later use rather than allocating them in 2011?

I think there's a serious misunderstanding here. IPv6 is "universally available" now, albeit at present universally inert -- unless one also possesses the means to translate and exchange packets with/across the globally ubiquitous IPv4 numbered hosts and other network resources. If some small quantity of IPv4 remains available to future new entrants -- *all* of whom will be otherwise exclusively IPv6-based -- then those entities will be able to internalize and directly administer their own IPv4/IPv6 translation requirements; in effect, they will possess much if not all of the same capacity "to be autonomous" that is now and has always been enjoyed by every network institution that has been eligible to secure PA or PI number resources from a regional registry. The reservation provides nothing more than that. However, that should be enough to assure that new entrants will not be so crippled by comparison to incumbent/legacy IPv4-based operators as to be relegated to a fundamentally different, arguably inferior, and permanently subordinate new industry niche.

IMO, If you think the industry should remain open to new entrants -- or even if you don't care but would prefer to continue operating with substantial freedom from close antitrust oversight/monitoring/ intervention, then this is a minimum requirement.

To my mind, the only reasonable cause to reserve addresses would be if there were an expectation that the ratio <connected services:IPv4 address> would greatly increase in coming years - that is, address reservation might be worthwhile if we could reasonably believe that instead of using one /8 to connect 16 million people in 2011, we could use it to connect 160 million in 2016, or 1.6 billion in 2021.

Well, by securing the means to internalize their own v4/v6 translation services, the proposed reservation enables future new entrant content, service, access, et al. providers to enjoy the same level of operational independence -- arguably, the same chances of building sustainable new service businesses -- enjoyed by every other independent network operator to date.

I suppose by implication that would satisfy your demand, and increase the <connected services:IPv4 address> density level -- but then so would allowing the market to become completely closed to new entrants and building all new/future services using NAT and IPv4 only. So I don't think that's a very good benchmark. What the proposed reservation will do, *uniquely*, is allow the <connected services:IPv4 + IPv6 address> growth trend to continue, with the smallest possible disruption given the otherwise unavoidable circumstances.

(I don't know how such ratio growth might be achieved - it might be through something like facilitation of IPv6 deployment (say, 1 IPv4 address is used with 1000 IPv6 services), or through improved NATing, etc.)

If no improvement in service:address ratio is expected, then it will only ever be 16 million people (or whatever current NATing allows) that can be connected, irrespective of when those connections happen.

So, my problems with prop-062 from the perspective of the above points are:

• It seems likely to incidentally rather than deliberately reserve

addresses, without criteria for final usage;

I cannot speak for the authors, but my own sense is that the criteria for usage is the same as it has always been for public IP addresses delegated by the RIRs: to facilitate the attachment and (at least potential) inter-operation of new users, content, services, etc. with the universe of other users, content, services, etc. that we call the Internet. To be perfectly honest, the reservation fulfills this purpose most clearly for new entrants -- i.e., "initial" allocation seekers -- but the decision to make it non-exclusively available on a one-time-only basis to all comers makes sense as a lightweight, pragmatic solution to potential complications like determining eligibility, etc.

• Its premise seems to be based on equally sharing the pain of IPv4

exhaustion, rather than identifying how limiting distribution could provide true management across IPv4 exhaustion and IPv6 implementation, leading to improved Internet connectivity in the entire Asia-Pacific region across this time.

No, its premise is that growth and dynamism and innovation are fostered by the decentralized management, parallelism, and competition that have been generally characteristic of the Internet to date -- and that those features are best preserved if the future, mixed IPv4+IPv6 addressing system continues to be characterized by as much of the uniformity/equivalence of technical use value that has been the norm for the IPv4 addressing system to date.

If you wish to make a positive argument that "limiting distribution" of IPv4 would provide different, concrete benefits, then I for one would be happy to see the details.

A suggestion for an alternative proposal might be one where future IPv4 allocations would only be made if it could be demonstrated by the requester that 1 IPv4 address would support connectivity for X hosts, where X is a number which may not be achievable with today's technology, but could be reasonably foreseen to be possible in 5 years' time or so (whether this be through IPv6-to-IPv4 translation, NAT or other means).

Your phrasing is ambiguous. All things remaining equal, new entrants that emerge after the unallocated IPv4 pool is exhausted will be able to support intra-domain connectivity for an infinite number of hosts with IPv6 alone. All things remaining equal, post-IPv4 new entrants will be able to support inter-domain connectivity for exactly zero of those hosts -- unless they are able to secure means to perform IPv4/ IPv6 translation as necessary. This will remain true forever, or at least for as long as most of the "rest of the Internet" is not reachable by an IPv6-only network. The goal of prop-062-v001 (my own interpretation) is to assure that the distribution of this critical new translation functionality/requirement invariably follows the contours of the established number resource distribution hierarchy; those that would be "top-level" operators under the system now and in the past are not relegated to some degraded status in the future.

Granted, that may be a far cry from what was once envisioned for IPv6, but at least it assures that the immediate future is no worse than the status quo.

Again, if you could describe in more detail how the only alternative -- i.e., translation services becomes a permanent technical and commercial bottleneck, with incumbent IPv4-based operators the only possible suppliers -- would be preferable, then I think many subscribers to this list would be happy to respond, myself included.

Regards,

Tom

At 07:36 PM 28/07/2008, Tom Vest wrote:

...

Given the stakes involved, and the eminently plausible outcome that some small quantity of IPv4 may continue to be both non-substitutable and non-optional for independent operations for a very long time to come -- much longer than ten years -- AND the fact that there will no way to remedy the situation if your assumptions about the time-to- tipping point turn out to be mistaken, wouldn't it be prudent to plan in a way that preserves as much flexibility as possible for an unknown future? As Randy noted, the run rate for sub-/8s is often measured in days... Is it really worth continuing on a course that everyone knows is destined to end for a few days more, at the price of giving up much freedom to adjust to unknown/changing circumstances in the future?

No reductio ad absurdum reactions please -- the price of this policy as written is a few lost *days* of status quo allocation activity, nothing more.

TV

On Jul 28, 2008, at 8:31 AM, David Woodgate wrote:

...

Thanks, Geoff - this is useful information for the discussion.

It seems to confirm that the likelihood of getting to 8,000 LIRs in the next 10 years is very unlikely. (And I suspect that not all of the 4,403 LIRs to whom allocations have been made by APNIC would be active now.)

Regards,

                                   David

At 03:13 PM 28/07/2008, Geoff Huston wrote:

...

...

...

David Woodgate said the following on 22/7/08 14:10: > My main problem is that prop-062 seems to risk locking up the > majority of the last /8, and therefore does not share it at all, > let alone in a fair and equitable fashion. I don't see how it is locking up the majority of the final /8. Would you please explain this.

prop-062 allows for 16,000+ LIRs to each get a minimum /22 allocation. As discussed in a previous email, it seems hard to justify even 4,000 LIRs over the next few years; I'd suggest that 8,000 LIRs in the Asia-Pacific seems unlikely within 10 years. That would seem to leave up to 8,000-12,000 * /22s unclaimed for a long time. But - if I'm reading it correctly - prop-062 doesn't seem to suggest that anything else would be done with this unclaimed space, and therefore it won't be used during that time; that is, the space is "locked up" and unused.

you make the claim that:

...

"it seems hard to justify even 4,000 LIRs over the next few years; I'd suggest that 8,000 LIRs in the Asia-Pacific seems unlikely within 10 years

Here's some historical data that may be useful in the context of this particular aspect of the discussion

APNIC publish an "extended" version of the daily stats file (ftp://ftp.apnic.net/pub/stats/apnic/delegated-apnic-extended- latest")

The last field in each row is a code for the end entity recipient of the address allocation or assignment, or approximately "LIR" in your terminology.

Now there is some small uncertainty in the figures as at times the NIR code is used instead, but overall heres the Ipv4 allocation record for APNIC since 2000, based on the numbers in that published file

year new repeat cumulative count 2000 94 432 2856 2001 86 430 2942 2002 83 339 3025 2003 115 425 3140 2004 120 570 3260 2005 216 617 3476 2006 253 786 3729 2007 394 745 4123 2008 280 429 4403

i.e. in 2007 APNIC made 394 IPv4 address allocations to "new" LIRs and 745 allocations to LIRs who had already previously received an address allocation. Overall APNIC appears to have made allocations / assignments to 4,403 LIRs since its inception, and some 1,547 new LIRs have been recorded since 1 Jan 2000 (i.e the last 8.5 years)

regards,

Geoff

•          sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management
  

policy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy

On Jul 31, 2008, at 5:33 AM, David Woodgate wrote:

Tom,

I appreciated your feedback - thank you for some well-reasoned points.

Your response highlighted for me that while we as an industry are giving some attention as to how to get networks *onto* IPv6, I'm not sure that much thought has been given as to how we will ultimately get them *off* IPv4. What will be the criteria identifying when a network can be connected to the Internet only using IPv6, without any IPv4, and be confident of at least > 95% connectivity? In what year will this point be reached?

Hi David,

That's a good question, one that merits more thought by the broader community. That said, it seems like a more fruitful way to approach the question would be to identify a set of tools which which one might track the evolving share of IPv4 hosts or ASNs (or more ambitiously, "important" IPv4 hosts/ASNs) that are reachable by some "meaningful" sample of IPv6 hosts over time. Something like the Routeviews Archive with additional functions maybe...

Given the likelihood that Internet access providers will wish to adapt their access services to the evolving connectivity landscape, it wouldn't be surprising if many chose to set up the equivalent of "wardialers" to regularly evaluate reachability and performance conditions between their own IPv6 end sites and a sampling of popular online destinations. If an archive of data like this generated by commercial operators (or barring that, perhaps a similar collection of results generated by multiple RIRs and/or other neutral, noncommercial entities) could be collected in some public repository, it should be possible to compare reachability from IPv6 hosts to reachability from IPv4 hosts, and thus to develop a kind of "substitutability metric" to illuminate how close IPv6 is to being "as good as" IPv4 as a means of attachment to the Internet over time.

One danger that I see in reserving a lot of IPv4 addresses to enable IPv6 network connectivity without a clear exhaustion or sunset date is that it may in fact remove industry incentive to move off IPv4 - and I don't think we should be encouraging perpetual dual-stacking in the Internet.

I agree, but the only alternative that I can imagine is a gradual but absolutely certain globally coordinated phase-out of IPv4 entirely. I can imagine ways to engineer incentives in order to promote an outcome like this, and I can even imagine reasons why such an approach might be attractive, even to most incumbent IPv4 operators, over the long term -- but my imagination fails when trying to come up with incentives that might be sufficient to overcome near-term discomfort that such an approach would inevitably create, especially among the largest IPv4 holders.

[For example, we seem to be assuming that the responsibility IPv6-

...

IPv4 translation lies with a new edge or stub network that is

otherwise IPv6. However, if IPv4 is ultimately to be removed, it seems to me that there needs to come a point (when the deployment of IPv6 is substantial) where it becomes the implied responsibility of the legacy IPv4 networks (or their transit providers) to do IPv4-

...

IPv6 translation. Otherwise, the IPv4 networks would be able to sit

there for ever and just say "well, *we* don't need to change - we've been here for all these years and everyone has to connect to us as we are!". I admit that I don't immediately perceive what possible changes in market conditions would enable such a transition from the first state to the second.]

It seems that you have arrived at the same failure of imagination that I described above ;-) I would agree that prop-062-v001 "envisions" (i.e., anticipates, but might also contribute to, marginally) a long transition period. However, given the perverse incentives that will accompany any/all of the most likely / most anticipated outcomes (e.g., creation of an IPv4 transfer market, or just continuation of the status quo until the end, etc.), even a long transition is an improvement over the real possibilities of a closed industry (aka inevitable external intervention) and/or no transition, ever.

All that said, I have indicated in my previous emails that I would be more sympathetic towards proposals that explicitly linked IPv4 allocations to IPv6 planning (especially one that effectively supported multiple IPv6 hosts per IPv4 address). I do not believe prop-062 does this - it implies an intent towards that, but it does not actually specify any direct association between an applicant's IPv6 status and an IPv4 allocation, and I suggest that there is a lack of a critical assessment as to why a uniform allocation of a / 22 is the best approach.

The type of issues I believe should be considered by an IPv6-focused proposal would include:

• A specification of the IPv6 and general criteria on which the IPv4

allocation would be dependent.

• A discussion of the criteria governing the appropriate size of an

IPv4 allocation

• A discussion of the amount of space that should be reserved for

this proposal, with the reasoning behind that amount (assumptions, forecasts, etc.).

I'll defer to the proposal's authors on these points, but IMO they all seem reasonable and modest enough to work through before the Christ Church meeting...

• A sunset clause - a date after which any remaining addresses would

be made available for allocation by justified request. This could be a far-away date like 31 Dec 2020 or longer - if we get it right, then no one will want IPv4 addresses after the nominated date, and if we get it wrong there should be plenty of time to change the policy.

To me at least, 2020 seems wildly, unimaginably optimistic based on current facts. Since the goal of the proposal is itself self-limiting -- i.e., keep some IPv4 available to new entrants for as long as IPv4 remains demonstrably non-substitutable, and not one day more, I'd prefer to see some actual empirical basis for sunsetting, e.g., something like the metric you suggested in passing above.

Additionally, it makes sense (to me at least) to leave the question of what to do with any IPv4 remaining after prop-062-v001 sunsets to be determined by community members at, or at least closer to that time. Defining appropriate sunset conditions for the policy within the policy itself seems like a good idea, but that would seem to preclude the idea of incorporating additional details that dictate conditions afterward. As you suggest, best to leave that for another day and another, separate policy proposal.

(It's just as well that the proposal deadline for APNIC 26 is past, or I'd be in danger of having to write up such a proposal! :-) )

One idea that has occurred to me is that maybe APNIC should not allow members to directly request addresses from the reserved IPv4 space associated with such a revised proposal, but instead should only make such IPv4 addresses optionally available as part of an IPv6 address request. (In other words, there would be no further IPv4-only allocations from the time of activation of the proposal, only IPv6-allocations with some IPv4 addresses.) I admit I haven't had time to think through whether this is a good or bad idea.

That's consistent with the point I made in our last exchange, i.e., "To be perfectly honest, the reservation fulfills this purpose most clearly for new entrants -- i.e., "initial" allocation seekers -- but the decision to make it non-exclusively available on a one-time-only basis to all comers makes sense as a lightweight, pragmatic solution to potential complications like determining eligibility, etc."

Clearly, the proposal's authors have a slightly different/more expansive rationale in mind, so I'll look forward to hearing from them on this point. But in general I agree that the compelling justification for the policy/reservation is to facilitate IPv6 incorporation/transition, so making this connection more explicit in the text of the proposal would represent (just) a modest but useful clarification.

Regards,

TV