IP Address News

Providing you with a single site about IP Addresses News and Usage

IP Address News - Providing you with a single site about IP Addresses News and Usage

APNIC 44 Observations

Earlier this month I was fortunate to travel to Taichung, Taiwan for APNIC 44.  I’d like to share with you a few a few notes from the meeting.

The conference website for those wishing to jump for more details… https://conference.apnic.net/44/

 

Policy SIG

Prop-116 – Block transfers from last /8 (103/8). APNIC’s last /8 policy gives /22s to new entrants.  Some new entrants are getting blocks and then just selling them.  So this policy blocks transfers and requires organizations to return the unused blocks to APNIC for reallocation under the last /8 policy. This policy reached consensus and is moving to last call. As a result of consensus, the APNIC EC has issued a statement that all transfers are now blocked from 103/8.

Prop-118 – No need in APNIC. This is a policy to mirror the RIPE policy. After discussion it failed to reach consensus and is going back to the mailing-list. There was a question to APNIC secretariat about how many transfers thus far have been blocked for lack of need. The answer was 1. No details were given on why, but people used this fact to say there is not problem that needs to be solved here.

Prop-119 – Temporary transfers. This policy was promoted as needed because reallocations or reassignments weren’t “good enough.”  The policy draft required an end date to transfer, then a block would be returned to original organization.  The policy didn’t specify minimum term.  There was an interesting and quite lively discussion on this one. It failed to reach consensus and there was significant opposition. The policy will be returned to the mailing-list.

Prop-120 – Adjust the last /8 policy. The policy sought to combine the two current pools 103/8 & recovered pool (which currently has a wait list) after 103/8 is exhausted. The community wanted to preserve the “new entrant” gets something ideal, so combining the two pools didn’t make sense to many. There was a discussion of then how to combine/prioritize the wait-list. This policy failed to reach consensus and is going back to the mailing-list.

Prop-121 – Simpler Initial Ipv6 allocations. Removes the 200 assignments plan requirement, everyone gets the minimum, unless you want to provide a detailed plan for getting more.  Policy reached consensus, moving to last call.

Prop-122 – Simpler Subsequent Ipv6 allocations. If 121 reaches consensus, then prop-122 subsequent allocations policy should also be adjusted to bring it in line with initial allocation. Policy reached consensus, moving to last call.

NIR SIG

I always find it interesting to see how the NIRs work within the RIR structure. While the update reports are sometimes just some quite repetitive stats, I did find the following interesting to note.

CNNIC – reports 93% of Chinese internet users use mobile as their connection method. They are spending significant effort to promote and train people to use RPKI.

KRNIC – KRNIC is undergoing a process to update all of their reallocation records with ISPs within their subregion. Still working on completing DNSsec signing of all their reverse zones.

INNIC – The “national” internet exchange in Indonesia has a peak rate of over 300Gbps and an interesting distributed topology throughout larger islands. INNIC is building their own “myINNIC” portal for members to access their records.

NAT w/ Geoff

Geoff Huston is off promoting NAT as the savior of the Internet now. Not really, but sort of, I certainly disagree with some of his conclusions. As someone who has lost days dealing with nat10 overlap between organizations, and trying to route/nat/encrypt/nat between multiple enterprise networks, the idea that we’d want to continue to add more NAT just sounds crazy to me if we don’t have to. Has NAT solved the issue with extra addresses needed at the edge, yes, and well it works well in the home CPE market. But beyond that, I’m not sure I’d promote NAT as a solution.

APNIC services

APNIC now has an organization object structure within its database. (Also some new contacts features in their portal)

APNIC continues to see fraud with address records, with people creating fake documentation and justification for resource needs. Often seen attempts at quick transfers with these kinds of fraud activities.

APNIC is continuing to look at how they want to be involved in the IP-geo-location issues.  They have a geoloc field in their database objects, but it is seldom used. Many other organizations feel like APNIC records are responsible for their addresses being located “somewhere else.” The conversation seemed to ignore that there are many different large commercial organizations which build geolocation databases (not off of whois information) and those records need to be updated too when a block is moved between organizations.

George Michaelson had a presentation about IRR and RPKI. With the idea to try and start people talking about how routing records should be created/stored in the future.  One interesting note there was that JPNIC now has (or will have soon) expiration dates on all RPSL records such that a regular review cycle is now required for all routing records. This certainly sounds like a good idea, if you assume RPSL is a good idea long term.  I don’t know if this would work well in other regions outside of JPNIC.

ASO review

APNIC will be chartering a working group to gather info from the public for the future structure of the ASO based upon the ITEMs consulting review of the ASO. Aftab Siddiqui and Izumi Okutani will be the co-chairs.

APNIC member meeting

Based on trends so far APNIC expects to transfer less (when measured by total addresses transferred) IPv4 addresses in 2017 compared to 2016 & 2015. A comparable year to 2014. Total number of transfers is projected to be up slightly in 2017 compared to 2016.

APNIC now using the new RDAP whowas specification implementation. https://www.apnic.net/about-apnic/whois_search/whowas/

There was a comment about the “ready to ROA” program and if it was perhaps distracting from other work that was perhaps more important. It seemed like there was some implication that people were just creating ROAs without fully understanding the implications or have any intent to use the RPKI for routing validation. (But perhaps I was reading too much into the comments I heard offline)

RIRs sign new service level agreement with ICANN

On June 29th, 2016, the RIRs collectively signed the service level agreement (SLA) that has been negotiated with ICANN for the IANA services.  This SLA or contract was negotiated as part of the number community’s portion of the IANA transition away from a US government contact with ICANN.

The IETF defines the Internet protocols and parameters, and in doing so delegates a portion of the number resources (IPv4, IPV6 & ASNs) used in those protocols to the RIRs for management.

The final step in the transition, from the numbering community’s perspective,  is for the US government to allow the contact for the IANA services with ICANN to expire, sometime before Oct 1, 2017.  Once the transition is completed, the RIRs will have a contract as a group with ICANN to provide the top-level coordination of the IPv4, IPv6, and ASN IP number resources.

ICANN and Regional Internet Registries Sign SLA for the IANA Numbering Services

 

APNIC 41 with APRICOT in Auckland, NZ

apnic-41-logo

 

 

 

 

I recently returned from the APNIC meeting in Auckland, New Zealand.  Here are a few notes and highlights from the meeting.

IPv4 Transfer Panel

A interactive panel on current trends in the IPv4 transfer market.

Alain Duran (ICANN Research) – IPv4 market might be considered concentrated depending on how you slice the data.  The RIRs are reporting transfers in different formats and different fields and this is hindering analysis.  Most transfers are happening in the region, but some are moving between the regions (ARIN is a net exporter).  Most of the addresses that are being transferred are “old” ones that were issued more than 20 years ago. (copy)

Geoff Huston (APNIC) – The largest transfers are happening in the ARIN region.  More than 58M addresses were transferred globally in 2015. There is a difference between what we see in the routing table for transfers vs. what is recorded in the registry.  We don’t have a good way to measure the amount of addresses that are being Leased/Rented.  We also can’t measure how many devices are behind NATs.  Transfers aren’t making a difference in the route-table growth. (copy)

Sandra Brown (IPv4 Market Group) – Sandra that price will still rise, but is currently being depressed due to the large blocks (/8’s) coming to market.  Price differentials between regions have largely disappeared since inter-RIR transfers have started with RIPE.  Using the /16 as a base size block, pricing bottomed out in Sept 2015 at about $5/IPv4 address and is now in the $7-8 range for /16s. (copy)

Gabe Fried (HilcoStreambank) – Only 1/3 of large “Elephant” transactions have been recorded with the registry.  Smaller blocks command price premiums, so some holders are choosing to break up their blocks and slowly sell them over the course of a year generating additional value to the current block holder.  Largest transactions (Option Agreements): Buyer pays at closing, seller keeps the block until the buyer is ready to transfer, buyer retains the right to direct the seller to transfer the blocks to a specific receiver at a future time.  10% of the volume of addresses are direct transfers constituting 96% of transfer transactions.    The remaining 4% of the transactions are 90% of the address transfer volume.  (copy)

Q&A period included discussions about how Letters of Authority (LOAs) are being used to route blocks.  Organizations should really check to see if people are really authorized to advertise blocks.  There was some discussion about if reassignment records be used to record renting and leasing records?  How can we bring more transparency to the industry for options contracts and leasing/renting issues.

YouTube video of panel

Address policy working group (Policy sig)

All formal action items were resolved before the meeting; 2 policies were implemented recently: Prop-113 & Prop-114

Prop-113 – new minimum assignment criteria, for a /24

  • Currently multihomed
  • Currently using a /24 and intends to multihome
  • Plans to multihome with 6 months

Prop-114 – new ASN assignment criteria

  • Currently multihomed OR have previous allocated PI space and intend to multihome in the future

2 new proposals submitted were not accepted by chairs:

First proposal submitted allowed aggregation of /21 approvals instead of /22 from 103/8 and /22 from other pool.

Second proposal submitted required whois contact email should be validated once per month.

Prop-105 – IANA returns pool – allows an organization to get another /22

The IANA returns pool is depleting. The non-103/8 pool is for a second /22 per organization. The pool will deplete soon likely in April/May 2016. March will add a /15. September will add an /18. Recovered blocks, if any, go into this pool as well. When the pool depletes, it’s going to bounce a few times as it gets repeatedly depleted and then refilled. Secretariat proposed at the Jakarta meeting the creation of a waiting list for this pool. The staff has started working on implementation of the wait-list which will be based on a strict order of request.

BGP route Hijacking

prefix hijacked (copy)

Interesting presentation about blocks that are being hijacked and the methods (fraudulently prepared LOAs) to get the blocks routed.  Don’t trust LOAs, they are sometimes not worth the “paper” they are written on.

BGP Hijack Issue on Nov 6 2015

Some hijackings are causing a race to the bottom of announcing everything as /24s in some cases.  This could have longer-term issues if this type of behavior became the norm rather than a transient exception.

vizAS

APNIC has a new tool that one can use to visualize ASN data.

http://labs.apnic.net/vizas

IP addresses in 2014

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.

Addressing 2014 – And then there were 2!  (copy)

LacNIC reaches /9, triggering IANA reclaimed block distribution

On May 20th, LacNIC announced that it has reached the equivalent of a /9 remaining in its IPv4 free pool which has triggered the IANA to invoke its reclaimed IPv4 address space policy.  The IANA received a number of blocks from various RIRs under the reclaimed policy over the years.  Under the global policy for reclaimed blocks, each RIR is allocated 1/5th of the total pool.  Now that the first initial allocation has been made the IANA reclaimed free pool will be reevaluated every six months and appropriate distributions will then be made to each RIR.

LacNIC received the block (45.160.0.0/11) and will continue with its current allocation policies with some additional scrutiny until the free pool reaches a equivalent of a /10, then only blocks between /22 and /24 will be allocated.

APNIC has subsequently announced that they have received a /11 equivalent from the IANA as part of the reclaimed distribution.  Under APNIC policies, each APNIC member is eligible to receive up to a /22 of additional IPv4 address space from this specific block.

RIPE has sent an email to its member list which notes it has received 45.128.0.0/11 from IANA and has added this block to its free pool.  Under the current RIPE policy each LIR can receive a single /22 block.

ARIN has not yet announced that they have received an additional block, but the IANA registry notes they have received 45.32.0.0/11.  As ARIN does not have a specific policy for this block so it should be added to the available free pool.  ARIN’s current pool lists 0.86 /8s equivalent remaining on May 21st.

I have introduced a policy proposal (ARIN-2014-16) to the ARIN region which would designated IANA reclaimed blocks to be allocated under an austerity policy, but this policy is currently in only at the draft stage of discussion on the public policy mailing list.

Addressing 2013

Geoff Huston recently released his 2013 IP addressing report.  A few notable details from the report.

  •  Device shipments for 2014 are expected to reach 2.47 Billion, each of those devices will need at least one IP address.
  • The industry continues to show consolidation of Internet numbering resources into the largest service and enterprise providers.
  • Geoff’s exhaustion model has ARIN’s IPv4 exhaustion date occurring with a 80% probability between Sept 2014 – June 2015.  (I personally think it will be sooner rather than later)
  • IPv6 allocations continue to grow with the RIPE region leading the world with 2,149 allocations of 4,018 total allocations in 2013 across all five RIRs.

Geoff concludes with the following insights:

The past three years has been dominated by the mass marketing of mobile internet services, and the growth rates for 2013 perhaps might have been the highest so far recorded were it not for the exhaustion of the IPv4 address pools in the Asia Pacific region and Europe and the Middle East. In address terms this growth is being masked by the use of Carrier Grade NATs in the mobile service provider environment, so that the resultant demands for public addresses in IPv4 are quite low.

Unfortunately no such broad scale of deployment of IPv6 was visible in the address statistics for 2013. This points to a mobile Internet whose continued growth in 2013 remains, for the most part, highly reliant on NATs, and this, in turn, points to some longer term elements of concern for the continued ability of the Internet to support further innovation and diversification in its portfolio of applications and services.

We are witnessing an industry that is no longer using technical innovation, openness and diversification as its primary means of propulsion. The widespread use of NATs limit the technical substrate of the Internet to a very restricted model of simple client/server interactions using TCP and UDP. The use of NATs force the interactions into client-initiated transactions, and the model of an open network with considerable flexibility in the way in which communications took place is no longer being sustained.

Today’s internet is serviced by a far smaller number of very large players, each of whom appear to be assuming a very strong position within their respective markets. The drivers for such larger players tend towards risk aversion, conservatism and increased levels of control across their scope of operation.

Addressing 2013 – That Was The Year That Was  (Copy)

2012 IP Address Statistics

Geoff Huston has published his annual look at IP address allocation and assignment statistics.

Addressing 2012: Another One Bites the Dust   (copy)

Plenty of numbers in the report to take a look at…  Notably, we saw ARIN’s 2012 (45 million) allocation rate increase back to its 2010 rate after falling dramatically in 2011 (23.5 million).  RIPE allocated its last IPv4 blocks under its “regular” allocation scheme in mid-September 2012 and moved into the IPv4 exhaustion phase of allocations.  In the RIPE region, there wasn’t an apparent “run-on-the-bank” increase in the allocation rate as the registry moved into the exhaustion phase.

fig8

Here Geoff’s updated RIR Address Exhaustion Model shows ARIN moving into the exhaustion phase in mid-2014 with LACNIC in late 2014.  AFRINIC’s trend-line currently points to an exhaustion point 9 years from January 2013.

Another interesting statistic found in the report is that the total number of smart phones and tablets purchased during 2012 amounts to almost 779 million units.  If each of those devices used a native IPv4 address that would use up 21% of the total IPv4 address space.

Geoff finishes the report with a somewhat pessimistic outlook for the Internet industry.

We are witnessing an industry that is no longer using technical innovation, openness and diversification as its primary means of propulsion. The widespread use of NATs limit the technical substrate of the Internet to a very restricted model of simple client/server interactions using TCP and UDP. The use of NATs force the interactions into client-initiated transactions, and the model of an open network with considerable flexibility in the way in which communications took place is no longer being sustained. Today’s internet is serviced by a far smaller number of very large players, each of whom appear to be assuming a very strong position within their respective markets. The drivers for such larger players tend towards risk aversion, conservatism and increased levels of control across their scope of operation. The same trends of market aggregation are now appearing in content provision, where a small number of content providers are exerting a dominant position across the entire Internet.

This changing makeup of the Internet industry has quite profound implications in terms of network neutrality, the separation of functions of carriage and service provision, investment profiles and expectations of risk and returns on infrastructure investments, and on the openness of the Internet itself.