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

ARIN 33 Recommended Draft Policy preview

ARIN33_logoThe ARIN 33 public policy meeting is coming up next week in Chicago.  There are a number of substantive IP number resource public policy discussions on the scheduled agenda.  If you are unable to come to the meeting please consider the remote participation option to have your opinion heard.

Here is my short commentary on the policy proposals being discussed at the meeting.  I’ve limited this blog post to the recommended drafts which could go to last call after the meeting since there are so many polices up for discussion at this meeting.

2013-7 NRPM 4 (IPv4) Policy Cleanup

Policy Summary: This recommended draft policy cleans up a number of sections in the IPv4 policy which are no longer relevant due to policy environment changes.  For example references to RFC 2050 have been removed since that document has been moved to historical status.  The easiest way to look at the changes for this complex change is look at a redline copy of the changes.

Issues: I believe that the controversial elements of the policy have been stripped out from previous versions and all the changes are almost clerical in nature.  I expect there to be some discussion about this policy but for it to be supported widely.

2014-4 Remove 4.2.5 Web Hosting Policy

Policy Summary: This recommended draft policy removed section 4.2.5 which instructed ARIN to collect technical details about how organizations were using IPv4 addresses for web hosting.  It also instructed ARIN to analyze this data for future policy changes.  This policy is an artifact of a failed policy attempt many years ago to limit web hosting organizations from using an IPv4 address per host.   The data collection appears to not have really occurred and no data was ever analyzed by ARIN.

Issues: This policy section (4.2.5) was a stop-gap policy to completely removing the original failed web hosting policy.  It was thought at the time if data could be analyzed then a future policy could be crafted from this data.  Operational web hosting has changed in the decade since this policy was put in place and today this policy doesn’t appear to provide any value, especially after the IPv4 free pool has been exhausted.  I expect there to be little discussion about this policy and for it to move forward to last call.

2014-7 Section 4.4 Micro Allocation Conservation Update

Policy Summary: This recommended draft policy changes one word (“two” to “three”) in section 4.4 which defines the number of members which must be present at an Internet exchange point (IXP) for it qualify for a micro allocation. This policy is designed to prevent waste from occurring within the IXP micro allocations reserve block.

Issues:  Standard operating practice considers two parties exchanging routes to be a private peering. Since in a two party peering one of the two members could provide an IPv4 /30 block for the peering it doesn’t seem unreasonable to raise the limit from two to three to preserve the long term IXP micro allocation reserve block.  Some have argued that this policy will have little effect and amounts to another rearranging of the “deck chairs.”  Others have argued that that Caribbean economies benefit from the current policy.  The AC was quite split on moving this policy to recommended status and I expect there to be quite a bit of discussion about this single word change in the policy meeting.

2014-10 Remove Sections 4.6 and 4.7

Policy Summary: This recommended draft policy changes removes sections 4.6 and 4.7.  These two sections provided an aggregation & amnesty program for IPv4 addresses.  These sections were suspended in early 2014 by the ARIN board of trustees due to concerns that these sections could be abused by an organization to quickly drain the remaining IPv4 free pool.

Issues:  These two sections of the IPv4 policy were rarely used and have not been used in the past six years by any organization.  The developing IPv4 transfer market also makes these two policy sections less likely to be used.  While there have been some concerns about the removal of these sections, there does not appear to be any substantive use cases which would provide a greater public benefit than the risk of leaving the existing polices in place.  Furthermore, if the community desired a smaller amnesty or aggregation policy those could be proposed through the policy development process.  No such policy has been submitted by the community so far.

IPv4 Transfer Market pricing transparency

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.

There are a few public exceptions to the pricing data, notably bankruptcy cases (Nortel @ $11.25/address & Borders @  $12/address) where the pricing was made public as a part of the court filings.

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:

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)

IPv6 Deployment in the UK

I was pointed to this report from OfCom, the UK communications regulator, through this commentary.

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.

Internet Protocol Version 6 Deployment Study  (copy)

ARIN 32 Draft Policy preview and predictions

arin32logoThe joint ARIN 32 & Nanog 59 meeting is coming up next week.  There are a number of substantive public policy items on the scheduled agenda.  If you are unable to come to the meeting please consider the remote participation option to have your opinion heard.

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…

2013-4 RIR Principles

Policy Summary: This draft policy adds a section to the NRPM which would provide guiding direction for ARIN’s registry functions.  The core of these principles were originally found in RFC 2050, but the new draft 2050bis which was recently published as RFC 7020 removed a majority of these guiding principles.

Issues: The majority of the discussion about this policy has centered on two aspects.  1) Should this type of text be inserted at all into the NRPM or is already overlapping with ARIN’s mission statement and text in the Policy Development Process (PDP)?  2) Does the draft policy accurately reflect today’s guiding principles for the RIRs (specifically ARIN) registry functions?  Important issues that have been raised here center around the issue of “stewardship” & “conservation” and how that aspect should be documented in a IPv4 runout RIR.

Prediction: This policy will reach consensus at this meeting and will be sent to last-call for approval.  I suspect there will perhaps be some minor adjustments to the text to accommodate any issues raised during the policy discussion.

2013-6 Allocation of IPv4 and IPv6 Address Space to Out-of-region Requestors

Policy Summary:   This draft policy inserts text into the NRPM which would restrict future IP allocations and assignments to organizations who have a legal presences and substantially operate their network(s) inside the ARIN service region.

Issues: This policy originated from ARIN staff comment at the ARIN 31 meeting.  ARIN staff reported that they were seeing increasing numbers of requests from organizations where the IP address were likely to be used outside the ARIN service region or be assigned to customers outside the ARIN service region.  Staff comments on this draft policy indicate this proposed text would restrict the disbursement of resources to legal entities operating within the ARIN service region.

The key issue in this draft policy is the statement:

a plurality of new resources requested from ARIN must be justified by technical infrastructure or customers located within the ARIN service region

Staff comments reveal that this policy as currently written would “create a scenario where a network can’t get IPv4/IPv6 addresses from any RIR.”  Legal review also made note of this issue with this comment: “points of policy to avoid … adopting an overly prescriptive guidance or standard that fails to permit multinational business entities to obtain number resources.”  This is certainly not a desired outcome of the draft policy and I believe must be rectified.

While I believe ARIN staff would benefit from the additional clarity in this draft policy, I doubt this issue will be of as substantial importance after IPv4 exhaustion occurs in the ARIN region.

Prediction: I believe this policy will not achieve consensus at this meeting.  I think there will be significant dissent from the meeting participants to move forward with the current text.  I suspect if the “plurality” statement was removed from the policy it would likely achieve consensus or near consensus such that the policy would continue to move forward through the PDP.

2013-7 Merge IPv4 ISP and End-User Requirements

Policy Summary:   This draft policy makes numerous changes to the existing IPv4 policy which attempts to merge the differences between the ISP and End-User allocation & assignment policies.

Issues: The changes made in this draft policy are complex and intertwined.  It is easiest to see the proposed changes in this red-line version.

https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/ARIN-prop-190%20proposed_text_changes.pdf

While I believe the general plan to attempt cleanup and streamlining of the IPv4 policy are headed in the right direction, I suspect the changes will not necessarily be well understood by the ARIN community and some skepticism will come about that the changes don’t necessarily all move in the right direction.  In general, this policy seems to loosen the requirements on organizations receiving IPv4 addresses, however these two changes are substantially different.

The utilization requirements on an initial end-user assignment changes from 25% immediate, 50% within one year to 80% within three months. This is offset by the lowering of the minimum block size requirement for single-homed networks.

This change seems to go against the idea of making it easier for initial end-user assignments, but this text changes the initial host count for single subnet from 1024 hosts immediately (25% of a /20) to 819 hosts in 3 months (80% of /22).

The timeframe for additional ISP allocations is changed from three months back to one year.

This change has been suggested a number of times, including 2012-4, since the 2009-8 policy put this into place.  In each instance, consensus generally has been toward not to keep changing the IPv4 requirements as IPv4 exhaustion occurs.

Prediction: I believe this policy will not achieve consensus at this meeting due to the large number of changes being proposed.  I suspect the draft policy will continue to be worked on by the AC and that the text will be updated subsequently and be presented at the next Public Policy Consultation (PPC).