[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Comment-Aso] Re: IP address space allocation: not a crisis, let's lighten up.

whoa, JG,  wait a minute -- 
you can't claim that 'the address space isn't
being used up so you can take the brakes off'

that's like saying `ok, inflation is low, no crisis now exists,
greenspan is just being draconian, he should reduce interest rates,
no worries, the economy will be fine,
we all know how to behave ourselves wrt the money supply'

we don't know how to behave ourselves, john.

and as you note, as w many aspects of the Internet,
there is Still no rational economic signalling mechanism in place,
nor clear path (nor, arguably, sufficient interest)
in how much work (pain) it would take to get there
e.g., the IETF PIARA thing fizzled in 6 months,
much to my disappointment

ftr, i don't have data on the part about it
moving 'further away from such markets'? 
can we really claim that?  that would be interesting

re `The original crisis came from the size of 
	routing tables, not an exhaustion of IP addresses'

Wrong. it was Both.  see


(Inet '95. again, hwb/pford's superlative work.  
also note that hwb did all of the address space analysis, 
even the 1997 stuff, 
i just presented it at IETF cause he wouldn't fly to DC...)

re 'networks are being designed for a scarcity of IP addresses, 
    when the scarcity is somewhat artificial'...

(a) disagree that it's artificial
(b) 4 billion IPv4 addresses isn't really 4 billion IPv4 addresses 
	when as you know the architecture dictates 
	allocating in blocks, hierarchically if possible
(c) don't see why NAT type stuff is so bad
	for cell phone systems or many other systems
am not saying am ok w the current ARIN model; 
the system definitely needs hooks for 
rational signalling and feedback(data)-based growth/evolution.
but *we* have to build them; ARIN never signed up for that.

but i think we should be real careful about
statements like `no crisis now exists; 
send these false stewards away'
esp if we use data from me and hwb to justify it <s>

in my mind they're not false stewards,
they're caught up in this relentless 
spin cycle just like the rest of us
and they're doing their best

i fear it's too easy to downplay their role 
(in coercing CIDR/conservation on us; 
thankless task, like greenspan's) 
but i think IPv4 (or the money supply) 
wouldn't still be so healthy without them

so is that stunting evolution of the Internet? 
cause we might have had IPv6 all working and happy by now 
if we'd just let the v4 crisis run it's natural course?

i am totally unconvinced...

change, yes.  
revolution, i don't think we could handle.


On Mon, Oct 11, 1999 at 05:51:27PM -0700, John Gilmore wrote:
  Hi Esther...here's another issue.
  ICANN should take care to avoid uncritically adopting the
  authoritarian ARIN/RIPE/APNIC model.  The structure of the ASO should
  ensure that proposed alternatives to authoritarian allocation are not
  strangled at birth by these entrenched organizations.  Moreover,
  either ASO or ICANN should *encourage* exploration of the dimensions
  of the true problem(s), and exploration of radically improved ways to
  solve them.
  A friend's ISP demanded that he submit a pile of personal details or
  his IP addresses would be taken away.  This policy was claimed to be
  forced on the ISP by ARIN.  ARIN is like NSI (which it spun out of):
  if you don't like their policies, you merely have to get off the
  Internet.  It makes them a wee bit arrogant.
  I sent ARIN a note, and got no response.  I wondered whether there is
  any need for their harsh policies, which were created when the routing
  tables grew too large for the routers of that day to handle.  ARIN was
  disinclined to investigate whether or to what extent it needs to
  exist; it exists by fiat, like the FCC it resembles.  So I asked kim
  claffy of CAIDA for real data.
  Kim exhibited a chart of IP address allocation at IETF two years ago.
  Hans-Werner Braun has updated the chart recently and also included a
  time-series (URLs below).  This is data measured from the real
  Internet by real statisticians.  It shows that in the last two years
  we've burned up about 3% of the IP address space (going from 21% to
  24%).  At that rate, we have at least a few decades before we are "out
  of IPv4 addresses" or IPv6 is a critical need.
  Many people believe the problem is much worse, because they have been
  told so.  E.g. the EuroISPA comment on the ASO proposal says, "The
  pool of available addresses is becoming ever scarcer as worldwide
  demand rises sharply."  I've been told that the sky is falling so
  vehemently that I expected by y2k we'd have burned up half the
  addresses -- instead we're only a quarter of the way there, and the
  trend is surprisingly flat.  (Seeing data from before 1997 would be
  particularly valuable in discerning long term trends.  HWB, kc: do we
  have any snapshots of the routing tables from before then?)
  Perhaps what's going on is a Y2K-style issue in the making.  If people
  don't switch gradually to IPv6 then we will eventually have a crisis
  at date X (2010? 2020? 2030?), so let's simulate a crisis now, so the
  problem will get solved while the net is still relatively small.
  Once we know the problem isn't as bad as it's thought to be, the
  policies for who can have how much address space are probably too
  harsh.  Requiring detailed information about the users of every subnet
  is clearly over the line.  But beyond the minutiae of allocation
  policies, the entire concept of administrative allocation should be up
  for questioning.  There was an experiment proposed in auctioning off a
  chunk of IP address/routing space a few years ago, along the lines of
  the early USG spectrum auctions.  I think such experiments should be
  tried.  Ultimately, routable IP address space should be allocated by a
  real market, as an alternative to kissing the feet of a bureaucrat to
  get an allocation.  Such a market would give people very clear signals
  about when to invest in IPv6.  The Internet community has been moving
  further away from such markets, probably because of a lack of economics
  background among Internet architects.
  As a third point, networks are being designed for a scarcity of IP
  addresses, when the scarcity is somewhat artificial.  E.g. the new
  worldwide 3rd-generation digital cellular standard proposals do not
  provide IP connectivity from the end-user's handset to the Internet.
  They couldn't give an IP address to every handset, the way they can
  give it a telephone number that works wherever it goes, so they have
  their own protocol which they will "translate" to IP at some set of
  protocol translation gateways somewhere.  This is a very unfortunate
  development; it means that cellular operators are continuing the
  separation between the mobile network and the Internet.  This is
  requiring new entrants like Metricom to (slowly) wire the world for
  mobile IP.
  The Palm Pilot that comes with wireless connectivity is an example of
  this model -- you can't actually access the Internet through it, only
  a strange subset defined by people who cut deals with Palm.  Cellular
  providers would love such a model, which puts them in the catbird seat
  granting "yea" or "nay" access to each Internet startup, but a global
  network architecture should also permit competitors to come along
  and offer the users a choice of real IP connectivity.  Phil Karn
  <karn@qualcomm.com> has written some thoughts around this issue.
  Address allocation policies were made in a mindset of "crisis", but no
  crisis now apparently exists.  There are issues, but no crisis.  The
  original crisis came from the size of routing tables, not an
  exhaustion of IP addresses.  The regulation that resulted has been
  propagated into regulating not only the number of routing table
  entries, but also how many IP addresses each such entry covers, who
  has them, and what they are used for.  Now there's nothing so
  permanent as a temporary emergency, and we have three organizations
  dedicated to maintaining that emergency.  It's unlikely to ever end if
  ICANN listens solely to them about address allocation policy.
  ------- Forwarded Message
  Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 16:15:17 -0700
  From: k claffy <kc@caida.org>
  To: John Gilmore <gnu@toad.com>
  Cc: Paul V <paul@vix.com>, hwb <hwb@caida.org>, sean <mccreary@caida.org>
  Subject: Re: John Gilmore: Chart or statistics on IP address space allocation
  hwb's done updates
  (i still want him to take out the big chunk
  in the bottom bitmap on 
  cause it's just funky artifact of pv's rbl stuff
  but i haven't gotten a chance to nag him enuf yet)
  above sentence may make more sense after you read it all...
  no promises
  i note that hwb is the only one i know
  doing anything legitimate to track this 
  and there's tons more to do if we had more time/elves,
  including analyzing actual traffic traces from a bunch
  of places to color by: 
  	. delegated
  	. allocated
  	. announced
  	. *used* (i.e., traffic actually going from or to those addresses) 
  obviously this last bullet is way sampled
  and even so requires special access 
  to 'representative' traces
  that few have
  another cool thing to do would be to color by
  those addresses that have reverse in-addr's lit up
  (color the rest some punk shade of pink)
  you send me elves
  i'll send you research
  On Thu, Oct 07, 1999 at 12:22:40AM -0700, John Gilmore wrote:
    I never got a response to this from ARIN.  Do you have any info
    on the history of the rate of exhaustion of IPv4?
    ------- Forwarded Message
    To: webmaster@arin.net, gnu
    Subject: Chart or statistics on IP address space allocation
    Date: Sat, 18 Sep 1999 16:53:00 -0700
    From: John Gilmore <gnu@toad.com>
    I looked over your site but don't see any information about how
    well the allocation of IP addresses is going in the long term.
    I.e. what % of IP address space is currently assigned?  What is
    the trend in the global routing tables governed by address assignment
    The ARIN web site lays out a completely authoritarian, almost Germanic
    command structure in which nobody has any rights and everything is at
    the discretion of the ARIN staff -- provided that you submit
    everything in triplicate and with full privacy violation.  I'm
    wondering whether this is actually *necessary* and whether, if claimed
    to be necessary, it is actually *working*.  Have any stats on this to
    justify all the paperwork you put people through?
    (I thought I'd seen a chart at IETF that showed that only about 1/4 of
    the address space is yet allocated, and at the expected rate of
    allocation it is likely to last for decades or more.)
    ------- End of Forwarded Message
  ------- End of Forwarded Message