[sig-policy] last Call: Policy proposal #beta HD ratio policy proposal
I just wanted to share this last call from the RIPE region wrt a proposal to
apply HD ratio to IPv4. The last call will end July 15 and are inviting
comments from the community.
As a background, during the APNIC 18 mtg a similar proposal "Application of
the HD ratio to IPv4" was discussed.
http://www.apnic.net/docs/policy/proposals/prop-020-v001.html
The APNIC secretariat with help of NIRs is currently conducting face to face
surveys of LIRs in the region on resource management practices, to allow
better analysis of the issues. The results for this will be presented at the
next APNIC 20 meeting. I also welcome any comments you may wish to post on
this list to continue our own discussion on the proposal at hand.
Regards,
Save Vocea
APNIC secretariat
-----Original Message-----
From: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe dot net
[mailto:address-policy-wg-admin at ripe dot net] On Behalf Of Hans Petter Holen
Sent: Friday, 1 July 2005 8:37 AM
Cc: address-policy-wg at ripe dot net
Subject: [address-policy-wg] last Call: Policy proposal #beta HD ratio
policy proposal
Hans Petter Holen wrote:
Following the discussion on the mailinglist prior to and after posting
the formal proposal I have seen no proposals to modify the proposal and
would like to move the proposal into the conclustion phase in the policy
development process http://www.ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/pdp.html
Last cal will end at July 15th.
Best Regards
Hans Petter Holen
WG Chair
> Thanks Alain,
> I'll as the new PDP is not in operation yet, I'll add this to my list
> as #beta v1
>
> I propose that we enter into the Discussion phase for 4 weeks from
> date until April 4.
>
> -hph
>
> BIDRON Alain ROSI/DAS wrote:
>
>> Dear Colleagues
>> Referring to the minutes of the last RIPE Policy Working Group
>> meeting and to the action list as updated during that meeting, I have
>> to make a formal proposal on use of HD ratio for IPV4.
>> Here is this policy proposal.
>> In order to be consistent with the PDP Draft proposal coming from Rob
>> Blokzijl I have used the template provided in the new PDP proposal.
>> Best regards.
>> Alain
>>
>>
>> _________________________________________________________
>> 1. Policy Proposal Name: IPv4-HD-Ratio
>> 2. Author
>> a. name: Alain Bidron
>> b. e-mail: alain.bidron at francetelecom dot com
>> c. telephone: +33 1 44 44 27 75
>> d. organisation: France Telecom
>> 3. Proposal Version: V0
>> 4. Submission Date: 02/02/2005
>> 5. Suggested WG for discussion and publication: Address Policy WG
>> 6. Proposal type: modify
>> 7. Policy term: permanent
>> 8. Summary of proposal: Internet address space is managed
>> hierarchically:
>> - IANA allocates space to Regional Internet Registries (RIRs).
>> - RIRs allocate space to Local Internet Registries (LIRs).
>> - LIRs assign space to End Users.
>>
>> At each level, some address space may be reserved for future
>> expansion and/or efficient aggregation. As more hierarchical levels
>> are introduced, the overall efficiency of the address space usage
>> decreases.
>>
>> The HD ratio (Host-Density ratio) is a way to measure address space
>> usage [RFC 3194]. The HD ratio value can relate to a percentage of
>> usage, which decreases as the amount of address space grows. This
>> allows for the decreasing efficiency that occurs with more
>> hierarchical levels.
>>
>> The HD ratio is currently used to measure IPv6 address space usage
>> [ipv6-address-policy]. The IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment
>> Policy considers a block of IPv6 address space to be 'used' when its
>> HD ratio reaches 0.80. This is a manageable figure ("values of 80% or
>> less correspond to comfortable trade-offs between pain and
>> efficiency" [RFC 3194]).
>>
>> This document proposes using the HD ratio to measure IPv4 usage. The
>> proposed value of the HD ratio for IPv4 is 0.96.
>>
>> 9. Policy text:
>> a. Current: "An LIR may receive an additional allocation when about
>> eighty percent (80%) of all the address space currently allocated to
>> it is used in valid assignments or sub-allocations."
>> b. New: "An LIR may receive an additional allocation when its total
>> allocated address space usage meets the HD-Ratio value of 0.96."
>>
>> 10. Rationale:
>>
>> a. Background
>> The current document, "IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment
>> Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region" [ipv4-address-policy],
>> considers a block of IPv4 addresses to be 'used' when 80% of the
>> addresses within the block have been sub-allocated or assigned. This
>> is applied to all address blocks, regardless of size.
>> Current policies assume a hierarchical system of address space
>> delegation. However, they do not make any allowance for hierarchical
>> management within allocated address space. For LIRs in particular, a
>> hierarchical approach is often required for assignment of address
>> space to service elements such as customer networks, individual
>> Points of Presence (PoPs), regionalised topologies, and even distinct
>> ISP products. Small network infrastructures may require simple
>> hierarchies, but large infrastructures can require several levels of
>> address space subdivision. These levels of hierarchy are not
>> recognised by the current policy framework and are highly restricted
>> by the "80% rule". As a result, managing large blocks is often
>> difficult, requiring large internal routing tables and/or frequent
>> renumbering of internal address blocks.
>>
>> One of the goals of the RIR system is to avoid unnecessary depletion
>> of IPv4 address space. However, address management policies must also
>> be practical in terms of how much management overhead they cause.
>> When large amounts of address space are involved, the "80% rule" can
>> result in more work for an LIR.
>>
>> Basing usage on the HD ratio should lead to equal levels of
>> management overhead across the board, rather than penalising the
>> holders of large address blocks.
>>
>> b.Impact
>> To see a rough estimation of the immediate impact of this proposal,
>> an HD Ratio value of 0.96 was applied to the average amount of
>> address space held by an LIR in the RIPE NCC Service Region. This
>> showed that on average, LIRs would qualify for an additional
>> allocation block when they have assigned or sub-allocated about 59%
>> of their allocated address space.
>>
>> c.Arguments supporting the proposal.
>> This proposal fairly takes into account addressing hierarchies used
>> in large and extra-large registries and introduces a useful level of
>> flexibility for those registries
>> The local Internet registries using the 80% criteria may continue to
>> do so and will not be impacted by the new policy.
>> The RIPE NCC will provide support to minimise complicated
>> calculations or administrative burden to LIRs.
>>
>> d. Arguments opposing the proposal.
>> This proposal will have some limited impact on IPV4 address consumption.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Appendix A. The HD ratio
>>
>> The HD ratio is calculated as follows [RFC 3194]:
>>
>> HD =og(U)/log(S)
>>
>> Where:
>>
>> S is the size of the address block concerned, and U is
>> the number of addresses used.
>>
>> Note: The current IPv4 policy considers addresses to be 'used' once
>> they are assigned or sub-allocated by the LIR.
>> Appendix B. Selection of HD ratio value
>>
>> We should decide an appropriate HD ratio value on a rational basis.
>> To do this, we make certain assumptions about the number of "hidden"
>> hierarchical levels involved in managing address blocks of various
>> sizes. If we assume there is 80% usage at each level, we can easily
>> calculate the overall usage.
>>
>> The following table proposes a set of hierarchical levels which we
>> can reasonably expect within different amounts of address space. If a
>> usage of 80% is achieved at each hierarchical level, then the overall
>> usage will be (0.80 to the power of "n"). It is then possible to
>> calculate HD ratio values from this value.
>>
>> Size range Level Utilisation HD ratio
>> (prefix) (n) (0.80**n) (calculated)
>> /24 to /20 1 80% .960 to .973
>> /20 to /16 1.5 72% .961 to .970
>> /16 to /12 2 64% .960 to .968
>> /12 to /8 2.5 57.2% .960 to .966
>> /8 to /4 3 51.20% .960 to .966
>> The levels of hierarchy listed above are based on assumptions
>> about the likely size and structure of LIRs holding address blocks of
>> these sizes. A reasonable HD ratio value may be 0.96 (a round figure
>> which occurs within most of these ranges) from the table above. The
>> following table gives the usage requirements for IPv4 address blocks
>> from /24 to /8 for this value.
>>
>> IPv4 Addresses Addresses Util%
>> prefix total used
>> 24 256 205
>> 80.11%
>> 23 512 399 77.92%
>> 22 1024 776 75.79%
>> 21 2048 1510 73.71%
>> 20 4096 2937 71.70%
>> 19 8192 5713 69.74%
>> 18 16384 11113 67.83%
>> 17 32768 21619 65.98%
>> 16 65536 42055 64.17%
>> 15 131072 81811 62.42%
>> 14 262144 159147 60.71%
>> 13 524288 309590 59.05%
>> 12 1048576 602249 57.43%
>> 11 2097152 1171560 55.86%
>> 10 4194304 2279048 54.34%
>> 9 8388608 4433455 52.85%
>> 8 16777216 8624444 51.41%
>>
>> Note: This table provides values for CIDR blocks, but the same
>> calculations can be made for non-CIDR blocks.
>>
>> As an example, an LIR holding a total amount of address space equal
>> to a /16 would be able to receive more address space when they had
>> sub-allocated or assigned 64.17% of that space; while an LIR holding
>> a /9 would be able to receive more space when they had sub-allocated
>> or assigned 52.85% of their address space.
>>
>> Appendix C. References
>> [RFC 3194] "The Host-Density ratio for address assignment efficiency: An
>> update on the H ratio", A. Durand, C.Huitema, November 2001.
>> [ipv6-address-policy] RIPE NCC document: "IPv6 Address Allocation and
>> Assignment Policy" http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ipv6policy.html
>> [ipv4-address-policy] RIPE NCC document: "IPv4 Address Allocation and
>> Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region"
>> http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ipv4-policies.html
>>
>>
>>