LacNIC announced today that they have reached the equivalent of a /10 remaining in their free pool and have stopped regular allocations of IPv4 addresses to organizations in their region. Organizations will now only receive a single /24 to /22 of address space every 6 months until the pool reaches a /11. After the pool reaches a /11 only new members to LacNIC may receive a single /24 to /22.
A number of talks at NANOG 61 this week included some updates on IPv6 deployments. The links below will take you to presentations and also video of the speakers.
Akamai produces a security report annually and in their report this year they noted have seen a 10x increase in IPv6 traffic compared with the year before.
T-mobile described their IPv6 deployment for handsets particularly noting how all of their Android 4.3+ handsets are now IPv6 only using 464XLAT as the transition technology back to the IPv4 Internet. 8 million of their 49 million subscribers are now largely using IPv6 only. Furthermore, they report that 27% of their traffic is IPv6 and that 50% of the traffic from these 8 million handsets is completely IPv6 without any translation to the IPv4 world.
I also found these talks quite interesting, but aren’t related directly to addressing issues.
NANOG 61 wrapped up yesterday in Bellevue, Washington. It is always different attending a conference in your home town; this was also the largest NANOG ever. On Tuesday morning, ARIN held a public policy consultation. Since I didn’t get a preview out before the meeting, here is my review of the discussion around the recommended draft policies.
Policy Summary: This recommended draft policy fixes an issue with the current policy which was highlighted by ARIN staff at an meeting last year. This policy describes how ARIN should allocate blocks for new sites for organizations which use the multiple discrete networks policy.
Discussion: Previous issues in the policy draft centered around how ARIN should test if/when a site should receive an allocation. The new text uses the phrase “has shown evidence of deployment.” There have been no negative comments about this new text and I suspect the AC will move this policy toward last call at their next meeting.
Policy Summary: This recommended draft policy removes section 7.2 which was formerly used when ARIN was conducting DNS lame delegation testing.
Review: This policy has not been in use for some time and the current policy carries some risk to operational DNS should it be implemented as currently written. Furthermore, the operator community has not asked ARIN to reinstate this monitoring service. I believe consensus has been achieved on this policy and it will move forward to last call.
Policy Summary: This recommended draft policy adds language to the experimental allocation policy to restrict overlapping assignments. This policy was created after multiple RIRs allowed an IPv6 research project to proceed by allowing an organization to obtain letters of agency permitting them to use overlapping address blocks. ARIN has acknowledged that this action was a mistake and will not grant similar permission in the future.
Review: This policy has been widely supported by the Internet operator community since its introduction. Some editorial changes were made to the policy just prior to the meeting and the AC must discuss those changes to make sure they do not change the intent of the policy when it was previously moved to its current recommended state. It seems likely that this policy will also be advanced to last call.
Policy Summary: This recommended draft policy changes changes the minimum IPv4 allocation size to a /24 for both ISPs and end users. This policy was rushed through the policy development process after a few organizations reported that their upstreams would not assign them /24 address blocks and they also could not qualify for an address block under current IPv4 policies. This policy also fixes issues that ARIN staff highlighted with the shortly upcoming exhaustion of ARIN’s IPv4 free pool.
Review: While the textual changes of this policy ended up being more complicated that many hoped, I believe the issue which triggered this policy draft will be resolved by this policy and that the additional simplification will also be beneficial. The staff review raised an issue about the maximum initial allocation size for new entrants. Current ARIN practice relies on a set of examples which are being removed by this update. Some discussion was considered about adding an initial maximum, but no agreement could be made on those changes. In the end, I suspect ARIN will continue with their current practice for block sizing, but an actual maximum would not be enumerated in policy. I believe this policy will be advanced to last call by the advisory council shortly.