Geoff Huston has published a detailed look at how the last /8 allocation and the subsequent IANA returned blocks are being used and announced by organizations in the Asia-Pacific region.
As expected, ARIN was forced to turn away a qualified applicant earlier this week for IPv4 addresses as its stock has been depleted. The organization was then put on ARIN’s waiting list with hopes that someday it still might get an additional block. These leaves organizations with the prospect of waiting, using more NAT (network address translation), or purchasing IPv4 blocks from organizations which have excess addresses via the transfer market.
No doubt, we will continue to see calls for increased adoption of IPv6 in the next weeks, but as I’ve written earlier IPv6 in many ways has economic disincentives to deployment. However, we continue to see the largest broadband and mobile providers continuing their rollout of IPv6 as these organizations are large enough that purchasing additional IPv4 blocks won’t scale over time.
While ARIN has a a few reserved blocks and special purpose blocks, and may receive some small allocations from IANA via the reclaimed address pool, the free pool is now exhausted and organizations can’t expect to obtain IPv4 addresses directly from ARIN.
This leaves the African registry, AfriNIC, as the only registry with an available IPv4 free pool. As of today, using previous allocation rates, AfriNIC still has until April of 2019 before its address pool runs dry. Only time will tell if we see an acceleration of the use of AfriNIC’s pool from economic incentives outside the region.
I’ll update this post with articles from other locations with interesting takes on the event.
- We’ve finally hit the breaking point for the original Internet
- North America down to its last ~130,000 IPv4 addresses
While many of our predictions on when this day would come have been very wrong. It can only be a matter of days now before some organization will not receive the block they would have normally received.
I would expect to see ARIN’s announcement either tomorrow (Friday June 26th, 2015) or early next week that the first organization which met the needs test and qualified for a specific sized block did not receive it because there wasn’t a block large enough in the pool.
Geoff Huston has published an update on IPv6 deployment that contains some interesting details.
- With an estimated 10 billion devices on the Internet today, they are sharing about 1-2 billion of the 4 billion possible IPv4 addresses. Using those numbers the Internet today is about 10 times larger than the amount of address space being used to actually communicate between clients.
- Mobile networks such as T-mobile using 464-XLAT are driving IPv6 traffic. (copy)
- Belgium leads in IPv6 deployment by percentage followed by the United States.
RIPE has posted a blog entry which details the IPv4 transfers which have occurred so far in the region. Since October of 2012, more that 2,200 transfers have occurred within the region. The post also includes an interactive map, which shows the “import” and “export” of addresses by country.
I saw a link to this website earlier this week which allows you to check your IPv6 connectivity as well as a number of other security features including DNSsec.
Next week is the ARIN 35 meeting in San Francisco. Here is my look ahead at the some of the nine policies being discussed at the meetings. There are four recommended draft that will be discussed along with lots of other items on our agenda. If you aren’t going to be there in person check out the remote participation options.
Policy Summary: This recommended draft policy allows organizations which have a small block in the region to request resources for use outside of the region.
Discussion: This policy started after it became known that organizations which are generally outside the region were requesting resources and using them almost exclusively outside the region. The primary motivation for these companies is that IPv4 has already been depleted at other RIRs. The policy took a number of twists and turns, but in general the community would like to see organizations which are headquartered in the region to be able to get addresses for all of their networks globally. While this seems simple reducing this to policy has been a challenge.
The policy as currently drafted only requires a small nexus of addresses in the region /22 of IPv4, /44 of IPv6, or 1 ASN. ARIN’s legal counsel has raised strong concerns regarding this policy and those concerns will likely be the root of the discussion at the meeting.
Policy Summary: This recommended draft policy removes text in the number policy manual which defines ARIN’s operational practice with regard to reverse DNS records.
Discussion: The purpose of this policy is to remove text out of the policy manual which is operational in nature rather than number policy. It is planned that this operational policy be moved to other locations where it can be updated as needed by ARIN’s operational staff, rather than the number resource community.
2014-14 Policy Summary: This draft policy removes needs testing from blocks which are smaller than /20 and permits an organization to have one needs-free transfer per year as long as a corporate officer attests to the organizations need of the addresses.
Discussion: This policy was rewritten extensively, largely by myself, with input from members of the AC. When the policy was returned to the list the new text seems to have fallen flat without much discussion. In my mind this means I have crafted text that now appeals to very few because it makes great compromises between the two sides of the argument for and against needs testing in the transfer market, or people don’t think this type of policy will solve the problems that exist in the current transfer market. I suspect this policy will likely be abandoned by the AC following the meeting. Hopefully, at least we have a robust discussion about what types of policy changes are needed as ARIN moves to mostly processing transfers rather than issuing addresses from the IPv4 free pool.
Policy Summary: This recommended draft policy sets asside an additional /16 for use by critical infrastructure.
Discussion: The policy is intended to benefit the Internet exchange point community, which is rapidly changing in the region. Given the imminent run-out of IPv4 free pool in the ARIN region, this policy is intended to insure that exchange points will have the number resources they need to continue to expand and provide needed interchange services for years to come.
Policy Summary: This recommended draft policy changes the minimum block size from /28 to /24 for the IPv6 transition block.
Discussion: This policy increases the minimum block size because recent testing has noted that smaller blocks may not be routable. This is, in my opinion, a chicken and egg, problem. People aren’t accepting smaller blocks because there aren’t many of them now, and they haven’t really been issued by the registries to entities which have the ability to get them routed. Others believe that the /24 boundary is so engrained in the operator community that they won’t change thus making smaller blocks basically useless to organizations which receive them. I suspect that the larger ISPs and providers will support this change as it allows them to maintain the status quo rather than changing to support the changing network environment.
Policy Summary: This draft policy changes the assignment rules for small organizations.
Discussion: It was pointed out recently that a type of small organization currently cannot receive an IPv6 assignment because the criteria is too strict. Furthermore, it is noted that renumbering is a complicated and costly process and these small organizations would not like to have to take on the renumbering process when they change providers.
Dyn research has posted an interesting commentary on some of the things that they are seeing in the IPv4 transfer market. Specifically, interesting is the address sales that are occurring in Romania with addresses being transferred out of the country.
Geoff Huston has posted his 2014 version of his IP addressing report. A few notes from within the report.
- Cisco, Morgan Stanely, & Gartner predicted that by 2020 there will be between 25 – 75 billion devices on the Internet as the “Internet of things” comes to life with embedded devices all requiring connections.
- LacNIC, RIPE, and APNIC’s austerity address pools are slated to be depleted between 2017-2021 if current trends continue to hold.
- IPv4 transfers increased quite dramatically in 2014 with APNIC performing 340 a 220% increase, and RIPE 919 a 600% increase. RIPE’s increasing transfers seem to be clearly being driven by the lack of needs-basis requirements in the region.
- LacNIC and RIPE continue to lead the world in IPv6 allocations with 1,208 and 2,218 respectively.
Last week the Consolidated RIR IANA Stewardship Proposal Team (CRISP team), released their final report to the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG). The CRISP team was formed to create a unified transition plan for the RIRs for global stewardship of number resources.
This processes started in March 2014 with the US government announcing its intention to not renew its existing IANA functions contract. The USG called for the Internet community to create a plan to handle the stewardship functions that the USG currently performs. ICANN & the Internet community responded by eventually creating the ICG group to coordinate the response requested by the USG for a transition plan for the stewardship functions.
The RIRs eventually created mailing-lists to start the discussion from which several governance ideas were considered. The CRISP group was then modeled based on the existing NRO model to create a unified transition plan in response to the ICG’s request for proposals.
The final proposal calls for only minor changes to the current structure of IANA stewardship functions. Primarily, it calls for a new contract to be created between the RIRs and the IANA operator to replace the current US government contract (via the Department of Commerce’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA)) with ICANN for the IANA functions. The response to the ICG does not call for a separate oversight organization and presumes that the current IANA operator, ICANN, will be contracted to fulfill the existing functions. The proposal also makes it clear that the RIRs are the contracting party in this relationship and should have the power to change the IANA number resource functions operator in the future if it deems this is necessary.
Still outstanding is the response from the most complicated area of governance, the names region. Its Cross Community Working Group (CWG) on Naming Related Functions is still working on its response to the ICG.