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.
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.
Next week is the ARIN meeting in Baltimore. There also will be a public policy consultation at Nanog 62 on Tuesday morning. Here is my look ahead at the some of the nine policies being discussed at the meetings. There is only one recommended draft that will be discussed, but lots of other draft policies are on the agenda and we will be looking for input on how to proceed.
Policy Summary: This recommended draft policy removes two words (“aggregate” and “reclaim”) from the mergers and acquisitions section of the transfer policy.
Discussion: The current registration services agreement, the contract that governs the relationship between ARIN and resource holders, has language which prevents ARIN from reclaiming address space when it is underutilized. However, the M&A transfer policy has language which prevents an organization from transferring their resource into their new name when they are underutilized. Because of this, we end up with orphaned records which don’t really match the new organization who is the new resource holder. Initially the draft policy had language in it which would have solved this problem, but this was removed because a number of critics of the policy believed that needs testing still should be performed and enforced for M&A transfers.
At this point, when IPv4 addresses are assets which can be transferred by sale to another organization, the limits in the M&A policy don’t make sense to me and only seem to create an environment where number resource records are not updated because current utilization rates may not be met across the new or combined organization. Still this seems like a symbolic change that people have supported and will probably achieve consensus at the meetings.
Both of these policies are suggesting changes in the transfer policies due to the imminent run-out of the IPv4 free pool and the changing requirements of the transfer market.
2014-14 Policy Summary: This draft policy removes needs testing from blocks which are smaller than /16 and permits an organization to have one needs-free transfer per year.
2014-20 Policy Summary: This draft is a complex change to both the current IPv4 policy and its related transfer elements. It seeks to significantly change how we look at the various aspects of obtaining addresses from ARIN or on the transfer market.
Discussion: I believe that changes are necessary for the transfer policy and the existing IPv4 policy as the free-pool is depleted. How we address these changes is critical to the success of ARIN and its mission, but also the success of the transition to IPv6. These two policies take different approaches toward the changes which are necessary after IPv4 depletion in the ARIN region. I suspect there will be a lot of discussion about these two policies and the need to update the existing policy set in a post IPv4 depletion world.
Policy Summary: This draft policy creates a new subsection of the policy manual to provide an austerity pool of IPv4 resources for organizations which do not currently have any resources directly from ARIN.
I drafted this policy after a number of discussions at the last ARIN meeting in Chicago where it was noted that the current IPv4 policy has limitations inherent in it for new entrants. This draft was modeled on the successful implementation of similar policies in the APNIC and RIPE regions.
Discussion: Most of the discussion about this draft has been about how to divide up the current /10 and the IANA reclaimed blocks between the existing transition technology pool and the new pool created by this policy. Hopefully, it will become clear during our discussions if the community supports creating an austerity pool and how they wish to divide up the currently reserved /10 and the IANA reclaimed blocks for new organizations which do not currently have address blocks from ARIN.
Policy Summary: This draft policy changes how IPv4 utilization is calculated to deal with limitations on subsequent allocation for some organizations.
Issues: The draft policy currently changes the utilization definition for all organizations. The side effect of this is that large organizations could obtain large new blocks just from the implementation of this policy. A few options to change the draft policy text are being discussed to deal with this issue.
Discussion: This policy fixes a known issue for smaller organizations which has occurred due to the smaller 3-month allocation model that is currently in use for subsequent allocations. While this policy lowers the utilization bar and has the perceived negative effect noted above for large organizations, this policy as written now could be beneficial for the transfer market as it would make it easier for organizations to meet the utilization requirements for future transfers.
Since most IPv4 transfers so far have occurred as private transactions the price for the address blocks has generally not been known. There are various economic methods and theories which could predict the value of the underlying IPv4 address rights, but those models may not bear much resemblance to the actual market due to the model’s inability to take into account all the factors effecting the IPv4 marketplace.
Hilco Streambank which is an ARIN registered transfer facilitator has started a new auction service which is openly posting pricing for the IPv4 blocks. According to their website, six blocks ranging in size from a /17 to a /24 have been sold in the past couple of months through this site. (Their site reports the auctions have closed, but the actual transfer may not have occurred.) (copy)
Looking at the pricing information that they have posted, there is a clear premium being paid currently for smaller blocks. The /24 block sold for $ 6,225 or $24.31 per address whereas the larger /17 & /20 blocks sold for between $7.25 – $7.32. The actual bid information is not released publicly on their site, so we do not know how many organizations were bidding for the blocks or if the blocks sold for the minimum listed price.
It will be interesting to continue to watch to see how pricing for blocks changes over time and if other trends develop based upon source or destination RIR region for the transfers.
Links to sites on IPv4 pricing models and theories:
The report is dated 2012 and has some interesting statistics comparing the deployment of IPv6 in various countries.
I found the following quote (emphasis mine) from the report interesting as I read through.
The report finds that by any measure, the UK lags behind its peers in IPv6 deployment. Whether in comparison with; economies of a similar size, G20 and EU member states, or with Asian economies, the UK is behind in IPv6 adoption. IPv4 address exhaustion and a failure to transition to IPv6 has a significant impact on innovation as it is the essential building block for any technology that connects to the Internet. Failure to keep up with competitor economies will have an impact on the UK’s consumer access to broadband, on eGovernment, […]
The report includes a brief discussion of the IPv4 exhaustion & transfer market, IPv6 deployment experiences, and deployment costs.
Geoff Huston has released a new essay about the valuation of IP addresses. I didn’t find a lot of new information in his article, but it does provide good background about the various attributes that should theoretically lead to the pricing of IPv4 addresses in transfer transactions.
I’ve been taking some vacation in the past month so the posting has been quiet here. Catching up on news, it does not appear there is a lot of notable news in the IP address arena. However, here are a few links & notes that I’ve found catching up on the happenings in the past couple of weeks.
- RIPE’s “No Need – Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and Cleanup” proposal (2013-03) was returned to the mailing list and is currently open for additional discussion.
- ARIN is getting very close the the 2 /8 equivalents remaining in their IPv4 free pool. The IPv4 free pool counter currently stands at 2.05. With the crossing of the 2 /8’s threshold ARIN will enter phase 3 of their count down plan.
- The Internet Governance Forum posted a commentary entitled “Secondary market for IPv4 addresses and the lessons of spectrum policy“
- Geoff Huston posted an update on the year since IPv6 launch date, “A year in the life“
The spring ARIN 31 meeting is fast approaching. The final meeting agenda has recently been published. There are also opportunities to participate remotely for those who are unable to make the meeting in person.
Here is my short commentary on the policy proposals being discussed at the meeting. In this blog entry, I’ve also attempted to make some predictions on the discussion and outcome…
Policy Summary: Changes the way utilization is determined for ISPs who return to ARIN for additional IPv6 allocations.
Issues: Since the initial IPv6 policy was implemented, it has been understood that the IPv6 policy would need to be modified as implementation experience was gained. Since the idea of hierarchy is important in IPv6 networks, this policy allows a network’s regions which grow at different speeds to retain the hierarchy structure and still allow fast growing regions to obtain the needed additional IPv6 address space. Since the draft policy’s introduction there was strong consensus that the existing policy needed to change, the challenge has always been the details of policy text.
Prediction: This policy will finally reach consensus at this meeting and will be sent to last-call for approval.
Policy Summary: Allows organizations to request to transfer an autonomous system number (ASN) from one RIR to another.
Issues: ARIN recently adopted policies which both allow the directed transfer of IPv4 between regions and also allowed the directed transfer of ASNs within the ARIN region. This policy extends this trend to allow ASNs to transfer between RIRs. Some stakeholders in general disagree with the idea of allowing IP resources to trade and will likely oppose this policy. On the other side are those who will argue that this policy is a logical extension of the existing policy to allow resources to be transferred to where they are needed.
Prediction: This policy will have signification discussion about the need for the policy and the role of inter-RIR relationships, but I suspect the final consensus at the meeting will be to proceed with the implementation of this draft policy.
Policy Summary: Allows organizations to use a lower utilization requirement for provisioning their 3GPP networks when requesting additional IP addresses.
Issues: Wireless operators have been using space beyond RFC 1918 (such as 18.104.22.168/8) to solve their addressing needs and now that this is becoming part of the “Internet” they need to move off of that space. With ARIN’s /8 inventory currently at approximately 2.5, I’m skeptical that any policy using global IPv4 unicast space can actually solve this problem. The policy text of this draft policy is also not complete at this time and if consensus is achieved on the concepts of the policy change this draft policy would have to return for discussion at another ARIN meeting.
Prediction: This policy will be abandoned by the AC following the meeting.
Policy Summary: Allows ISPs to request smaller than normal IPv6 address blocks or return larger IPv6 blocks to reduce their IPv6 holdings.
Issues: This draft policy addresses an issue where ISPs are being moved into a larger ARIN fee category under the new fee schedule and allows them to return address space to move to a smaller IPv6 fee category. There has been significant discussion on the PPML mailing list about this issue and at this point it seems unclear if this proposal will achieve consensus at the meeting. The primary argument against this policy is that this policy undermines the best current practices for IPv6 subnetting, the intended hierarchical addressing structure defined by the IETF in the IPv6 RFCs, and generous nature of intended IPv6 assignments to end-users. Some stakeholders will argue that ARIN’s fees shouldn’t be used as a force to dictate a network’s IPv6 architecture. Arguments for the policy are that some small ISPs don’t need and never will use the current minimum block size of a /32 or /36 and should be able to get a /48 which meets their network needs.
Prediction: This policy will be sent to last call by the AC following the meeting. (I suspect it is possible that the /48 option will be removed from the draft policy as part of the discussion)