Send ARIN-PPML mailing list submissions to
[email protected]
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
[email protected]
You can reach the person managing the list at
[email protected]
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of ARIN-PPML digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2012-6: Revising Section 4.4 C/I
Reserved Pool Size (Christopher Morrow)
2. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2012-6: Revising Section 4.4 C/I
Reserved Pool Size (Gary Buhrmaster)
3. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2012-7: Reassignments for Third Party
Internet Access (TPIA) over Cable (Gary Buhrmaster)
4. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2012-6: Revising Section 4.4 C/I
Reserved Pool Size (Christopher Morrow)
5. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2012-7: Reassignments for Third Party
Internet Access (TPIA) over Cable (William Herrin)
6. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2012-6: Revising Section 4.4 C/I
Reserved Pool Size (Martin Hannigan)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 14:25:36 -0400
From: Christopher Morrow <[email protected]>
To: David Farmer <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2012-6: Revising Section
4.4 C/I Reserved Pool Size
Message-ID:
<cal9jlaagzh9pxuvxgnz9sgboynweyk0orpg3xgk1npwhc+k...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 12:46 AM, David Farmer <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 10/17/12 22:07 , Christopher Morrow wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 10:27 PM, David Farmer <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> ...
>
>> yup, it'd be nice if that were easier to parse automatedly :(
>> I wonder if adding the policy under which the block was allocated
>> could be easily added to the allocation data at:
>> <ftp://ftp.arin.net/pub/stats/arin/delegated-arin-latest>
>
>
> Yea, if possible that would be a good thing to add to that set of data.
>
>
>> that'd make this sort of thing simpler over all.
>>
>>> CI allocations:
>>> 2000: 14 prefixes, 14 /24s
>>> 2001: 0 prefixes, 0 /24s
>>> 2002: 0 prefixes, 0 /24s
>>> 2003: 14 prefixes, 35 /24s
>>> 2004: 12 prefixes, 40 /24s
>>> 2005: 6 prefixes, 10 /24s
>>> 2006: 4 prefixes, 12 /24s
>>> 2007: 8 prefixes, 20 /24s
>>> 2008: 10 prefixes, 46 /24s
>>> 2009: 2 prefixes, 3 /24s
>>> 2010: 11 prefixes, 68 /24s
>>> 2011: 8 prefixes, 23 /24s
>>> 2012TD: 1 prefixes, 4 /24s
>>> Total: 90 prefixes, 275 /24s
>>>
>>> IX allocations:
>>> 1998: 1 prefixes, 1 /24s
>>> 1999: 1 prefixes, 1 /24s
>>> 2000: 2 prefixes, 2 /24s
>>> 2001: 3 prefixes, 6 /24s
>>> 2002: 3 prefixes, 3 /24s
>>> 2003: 2 prefixes, 2 /24s
>>> 2004: 6 prefixes, 6 /24s
>>> 2005: 2 prefixes, 2 /24s
>>> 2006: 2 prefixes, 2 /24s
>>> 2007: 5 prefixes, 15 /24s
>>> 2008: 2 prefixes, 3 /24s
>>> 2009: 7 prefixes, 12 /24s
>>> 2010: 3 prefixes, 4 /24s
>>> 2011: 7 prefixes, 8 /24s
>>> 2012TD: 5 prefixes, 5 /24s
>>> Total: 51 prefixes, 72 /24s
>>> (There were 5 IX allocation that did show up in ARIN Whois, there are 56
>>> allocation on the web page above)
>>>
>>> Grand Total (CI+IX): 141 prefixes, 347 /24s
>>
>>
>> there doesn't appear to be much pattern directly in the allocation rates
>> :(
>
>
> Yea, I didn't see much of one either.
>
>
>> I still think the largest easy driver is gTLD growth, and that's not
>> going to be very predictable either.
>
>
> Thinking about it, more gTLDs will drive the growth in CI. However, I think
> more important than absolute growth in gTLDs will be the growth in the
> number of gTLD operators, which I think will be a better predictor of the
> number of /24s needed.
I suspect that the normal operating procedure is to put one NS on each
/24(or48?), and likely a set of these per TLD.
You don't want some problem with atld to affect btld just because you
put them both on the same /24||/48 :(
Looking at the rootzone (http://www.internic.net/zones/root.zone):
Zone count: 272
NSHost count: 1182
NSAddr count: 1620
of the addresses there I see some re-use of the actual /32 || /128, 59
occurances of the same /32 or /128.
488 v6 addresses
274 unique /48s in that set
1132 v4 addresses
713 unique /24s
> Even if you only serve one gTLD per address, you could serve as many as 200+
> gTLDs per /24 prefix, replicated across some number of prefixes, per
it seems that a lot of the usage here today is 1 /32 per /24. This
permits the operator to isolate routing globally for the each NS host.
For instance, bad things happening to ns1.atld (1.2.3.4) don't have to
affect ns2.atld (1.2.4.4) and they don't have to affect ns1.btld
(1.2.5.4) nor ns2.btld (1.2.6.4).
it's clearly not the only solution, but it looks as if over half are
being done this way?
> operator. So, I think the number of gTLD operators a is more relevant
> predictor for the growth in CI allocations ARIN will need to make.
I'm not convinced... there's an alternate view that: "If you pony up
185k for a tld + some money for lawyers and consultants and gear and
network links... you can pony up money for a /24 from 'the v4 market'
people."
so maybe this is all not important? (for ci space)
> Even very large growth in the number of gTLDs could be accommodated by only
> moderate growth in CI allocations made by ARIN, if the number of gTLD
> operators remains relatively small, and each operator services a large
> number of gTLD. However conversely, only a small growth in gTLDs that
> results in many more gTLD operators, each servicing only a relatively small
> number of gTLDs, could result in a large growth in CI allocations made by
> ARIN.
>
> Therefore, the absolute number of gTLDs is probably not a good predictor for
> growth in CI allocations made by ARIN, and how the gTLD operator market
your own logic above doesn't get to this conclusion, but does kind of
say: "we have no way to predict this" (which I agreed with previously,
too).
> develops over time will be more important for predicting the growth in CI
> allocations made by ARIN.
>
>
>> Enlarging the hold-out for CI to
>> a /15 means we can grow 1.5x today's current allocations before we
>> have to dip back into the larger 'free' pool. I'm not sure that a /15
>> is enough, I also don't see an easy way to predict what would be big
>> enough.
>
>
> Given ICANN's discussions to significantly expand the number of gTLDs, I
> think expanding the CI reservation from /16 to /15 is a reasonable
> precaution. However, my prediction is that a /15 should be sufficient for
I don't disagree that 'enlarging it..' seems good. I don't get a good
feeling at all about how large is 'enough'.
> several years of gTLD and other CI growth, I'm think 2 to 5 years. If that
> turns out to be incorrect, then I would support expanding the reservation
> with future returned space as necessary. But, I think we can take wait and
> see approach in dealing with that contingency.
I think the timeframe is not 2-5 yrs, but 'how long is it that v4 is
still relevant/required at the TLD level?" and I'd expect that to last
much further out than 2-5yrs... I was thinking at least 10 if not 20
yrs.
thanks for the conversation so far!
-chris
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 13:02:20 -0700
From: Gary Buhrmaster <[email protected]>
To: Christopher Morrow <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2012-6: Revising Section
4.4 C/I Reserved Pool Size
Message-ID:
<camfxtqwvu+htx+upvh3lrwkh3tvcjm0va8qddlr401j4m+n...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 11:25 AM, Christopher Morrow
<[email protected]> wrote:
.....
>> Given ICANN's discussions to significantly expand the number of gTLDs, I
>> think expanding the CI reservation from /16 to /15 is a reasonable
>> precaution. However, my prediction is that a /15 should be sufficient for
>
> I don't disagree that 'enlarging it..' seems good. I don't get a good
> feeling at all about how large is 'enough'.
>
>> several years of gTLD and other CI growth, I'm think 2 to 5 years. If that
>> turns out to be incorrect, then I would support expanding the reservation
>> with future returned space as necessary. But, I think we can take wait and
>> see approach in dealing with that contingency.
>
> I think the timeframe is not 2-5 yrs, but 'how long is it that v4 is
> still relevant/required at the TLD level?" and I'd expect that to last
> much further out than 2-5yrs... I was thinking at least 10 if not 20
> yrs.
Unfortunately, I am afraid that the only answer of how much
space is enough, or how long will IPv4 be relevant will be of
the form "We will know it when we experience it". Enlarging
the CI reserved space now seems to have little long term
downside (since we can always reduce it if not needed), with
the upside of having the space if we need it (for 10+ years).
I support the policy.
Gary
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 14:11:10 -0700
From: Gary Buhrmaster <[email protected]>
To: ARIN <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2012-7: Reassignments for
Third Party Internet Access (TPIA) over Cable
Message-ID:
<camfxtqy8wyjlsesn79rhx6vvxrcv8gc1hy4knmp1tcnzkuv...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 1:52 PM, ARIN <[email protected]> wrote:
> Draft Policy ARIN-2012-7
> Reassignments for Third Party Internet Access (TPIA) over Cable
I agree with almost all the negative reviews of this policy,
including that of consul. However, when the rubber hits
the road, one sometimes has to hold one's nose, and do
what needs to be done and choose the lease of the bad
choices. I believe this is one of those times.
Support.
Gary
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 17:47:13 -0400
From: Christopher Morrow <[email protected]>
To: Gary Buhrmaster <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2012-6: Revising Section
4.4 C/I Reserved Pool Size
Message-ID:
<CAL9jLabRFQW82LKxscrtJqKEVja=j17a1mf7wypu9bygran...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 4:02 PM, Gary Buhrmaster
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 11:25 AM, Christopher Morrow
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> .....
>>> Given ICANN's discussions to significantly expand the number of gTLDs, I
>>> think expanding the CI reservation from /16 to /15 is a reasonable
>>> precaution. However, my prediction is that a /15 should be sufficient for
>>
>> I don't disagree that 'enlarging it..' seems good. I don't get a good
>> feeling at all about how large is 'enough'.
>>
>>> several years of gTLD and other CI growth, I'm think 2 to 5 years. If that
>>> turns out to be incorrect, then I would support expanding the reservation
>>> with future returned space as necessary. But, I think we can take wait and
>>> see approach in dealing with that contingency.
>>
>> I think the timeframe is not 2-5 yrs, but 'how long is it that v4 is
>> still relevant/required at the TLD level?" and I'd expect that to last
>> much further out than 2-5yrs... I was thinking at least 10 if not 20
>> yrs.
>
> Unfortunately, I am afraid that the only answer of how much
> space is enough, or how long will IPv4 be relevant will be of
> the form "We will know it when we experience it". Enlarging
> the CI reserved space now seems to have little long term
> downside (since we can always reduce it if not needed), with
> the upside of having the space if we need it (for 10+ years).
>
> I support the policy.
I forgot to say that in general I support the policy, I just don't get
a good feeling that /15 is large enough.
I also (as said) don't know what would be 'large enough', so... sure, 15.
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 17:56:51 -0400
From: William Herrin <[email protected]>
To: Gary Buhrmaster <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2012-7: Reassignments for
Third Party Internet Access (TPIA) over Cable
Message-ID:
<cap-gugwakdq_u9+kygc1hs1hf__lwna-u1f7bm_p9qmpjqo...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 5:11 PM, Gary Buhrmaster
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 1:52 PM, ARIN <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Draft Policy ARIN-2012-7
>> Reassignments for Third Party Internet Access (TPIA) over Cable
>
> I agree with almost all the negative reviews of this policy,
> including that of consul. However, when the rubber hits
> the road, one sometimes has to hold one's nose, and do
> what needs to be done and choose the lease of the bad
> choices. I believe this is one of those times.
Then put an expire date on it so that the various parties in this
stinker know up front they're on borrowed time. The rest of us expect
the incumbent cable companies to fix their tech so that it behaves
reasonably.
Regards,
Bill Herrin
--
William D. Herrin ................ [email protected] [email protected]
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 18:55:49 -0400
From: Martin Hannigan <[email protected]>
To: Christopher Morrow <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2012-6: Revising Section
4.4 C/I Reserved Pool Size
Message-ID:
<CAMDXq5MTUKso0LAvSVs40UcBzgNv9XYC0NTDrEX3eEqaP=z...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
I don't think it's big enough either since I initially proposed a /14.
Getting it on the docket was the goal and modifying it to a /15 to
silence the minority majority was the path of least resistance.
There were ~1900 applicants with an expected success rate of 70%
leaving ~1300 which most are primarily being applied for by currently
US companies. There are some foreign entities, but it's noise. If you
assign a /24 to each you're looking at a little more than a /14. The
noise should allow for the impact of IX's and other CI. I think a /14
is right.
Best,
-M<
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 5:47 PM, Christopher Morrow
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 4:02 PM, Gary Buhrmaster
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 11:25 AM, Christopher Morrow
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> .....
>>>> Given ICANN's discussions to significantly expand the number of gTLDs, I
>>>> think expanding the CI reservation from /16 to /15 is a reasonable
>>>> precaution. However, my prediction is that a /15 should be sufficient for
>>>
>>> I don't disagree that 'enlarging it..' seems good. I don't get a good
>>> feeling at all about how large is 'enough'.
>>>
>>>> several years of gTLD and other CI growth, I'm think 2 to 5 years. If that
>>>> turns out to be incorrect, then I would support expanding the reservation
>>>> with future returned space as necessary. But, I think we can take wait and
>>>> see approach in dealing with that contingency.
>>>
>>> I think the timeframe is not 2-5 yrs, but 'how long is it that v4 is
>>> still relevant/required at the TLD level?" and I'd expect that to last
>>> much further out than 2-5yrs... I was thinking at least 10 if not 20
>>> yrs.
>>
>> Unfortunately, I am afraid that the only answer of how much
>> space is enough, or how long will IPv4 be relevant will be of
>> the form "We will know it when we experience it". Enlarging
>> the CI reserved space now seems to have little long term
>> downside (since we can always reduce it if not needed), with
>> the upside of having the space if we need it (for 10+ years).
>>
>> I support the policy.
>
> I forgot to say that in general I support the policy, I just don't get
> a good feeling that /15 is large enough.
> I also (as said) don't know what would be 'large enough', so... sure, 15.
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
End of ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 88, Issue 15
*****************************************
