Allocation vs Announcement A comparison of RIR IPv4 Allocation Records with Global Routing Announcements Geoff Huston February 2004 (Supported by APNIC)

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
IPv4 Address Lifetime Expectancy Revisited Geoff Huston March 2004 Research activity supported by APNIC The Regional Internet Registries s do not make.
Advertisements

IPv4 Address Lifetime Presented by Paul Wilson, APNIC Research activity conducted by Geoff Huston and supported by APNIC.
BGP01 An Examination of the Internets BGP Table Behaviour in 2001 Geoff Huston Telstra.
APNIC Unassigned Space Report Geoff Huston March 2003.
Tracking the Internets BGP Table Geoff Huston Telstra January 2001.
Geoff Huston, APNIC March 2006 APRICOT 2006 IPv4 Numerology.
IPv4 Address Lifetime Expectancy Revisited Geoff Huston September 2003 Presentation to the RIPE 46 Plenary Research activity supported by APNIC The Regional.
ARIN Public Policy Meeting
Measuring IPv6 Deployment Geoff Huston George Michaelson
IPv4 Address Transfer proposal APNIC prop-050-v002 Geoff Huston.
BGP AS Number Exhaustion Geoff Huston Research activity supported by APNIC March 2003.
Routing Table Status Report Geoff Huston February 2005 APNIC.
Routing Items from IAB Utrecht Workshop Geoff Huston IAB.
Routing Table Status Report November 2005 Geoff Huston APNIC.
BGP Unallocated Address Route Server Geoff Huston March 2002.
Number of ASs Observations ASs grew by 25% over the year Note span of visible ASs (11,200 – 12,500) Not every AS is visible to all other ASs But there.
IPv4 Unallocated Address Space Exhaustion Geoff Huston Chief Scientist APNIC APNIC 24, September 2007.
BGP Status Update Geoff Huston September What Happening (AS4637) Date.
African Internet resources and routing statistics AfriNIC X Cairo, May 2009.
A S I A P A C I F I C N E T W O R K I N F O R M A T I O N C E N T R E APNIC Open Policy Meeting Address Policy (Procedures) SIG 1 March 2001.
Comparing IPv4 and IPv6 from the perspective of BGP dynamic activity Geoff Huston APNIC February 2012.
BGP in 2009 Geoff Huston APNIC May Conventional BGP Wisdom IAB Workshop on Inter-Domain routing in October 2006 – RFC 4984: “routing scalability.
Changed made by MF on 29/10/04 Delete Change Add –All slides Obtained Geoff Huston’s review – done on 26/10/2004 Obtained Doc Team’s proof read - done.
IPv4 Consumption Status Geoff Huston. Status of IPv4 today.
Allocations vs Announcements A comparison of RIR IPv4 Allocation Records with Global Routing Announcements Geoff Huston May 2004 (Activity supported by.
IPv4 Address Lifetime Expectancy Geoff Huston Research activity supported by APNIC The Regional Internet Registries s do not make forecasts or predictions.
Interconnectivity Density Compare number of AS’s to average AS path length A uniform density model would predict an increasing AS Path length (“Radius”)
1 IPv6 Address Space Management Report of IPv6 Registry Simulation Policy SIG 1 Sept 2004 APNIC18, Nadi, Fiji Geoff Huston.
IPv4 Address Lifetime Presented by Nurani Nimpuno, APNIC Research activity conducted by Geoff Huston and supported by APNIC.
Measuring IPv6 Deployment Geoff Huston George Michaelson
Measuring IPv6 Deployment Geoff Huston George Michaelson
Internet Addressing and the RIR system (part 2) 12 February 2004 Phnom Penh, Cambodia Paul Wilson, APNIC.
A proposal to lower the IPv4 minimum allocation size and initial criteria in the AP region prop-014-v001 Policy SIG APNIC17/APRICOT 2004 Feb
IPv4 Address Lifetime Expectancy Revisited - Revisited Geoff Huston November 2003 Presentation to the IEPG Research activity supported by APNIC The Regional.
BGP in 2011 Geoff Huston APNIC. Conventional (Historical) BGP Wisdom IAB Workshop on Inter-Domain routing in October 2006 – RFC 4984: “routing scalability.
Inter-Domain Routing Trends Geoff Huston APNIC March 2007.
1 AS Consumption Patterns Geoff Huston APNIC May 2005.
Routing Table Status Report Geoff Huston November 2004 APNIC.
IPv4 Address Lifetime Expectancy Geoff Huston, APNIC 26 October 2005 ARIN XVI.
1 IPv4 Address Lifetime Presented by Paul Wilson, APNIC Research activity conducted by Geoff Huston and supported by APNIC.
IPv4 Address Lifetime SANOG IV Presented by Nurani Nimpuno, APNIC Research activity conducted by Geoff Huston and supported by APNIC.
IPv4. The End of the World is nigh (er) ! Geoff Huston Chief Scientist APNIC.
Routing Table Status Report Geoff Huston August 2004 APNIC.
Routing Table Status Report August 2005 Geoff Huston.
Tracking the Internet’s BGP Table Geoff Huston Telstra December 2000.
1 Transition to IPv6: Should ISPs consider it now? PITA 11th AGM Meeting 2007 Tahiti, French Polynesia 24 April 2007.
1 APNIC Open Address Policy Meeting Special Interest Group Session March 2nd, Korea, Seoul.
More Specific Announcements in BGP
Routing 2015 Scaling BGP Geoff Huston APNIC May 2016.
The Status of APNIC’s IPv4 Resources: Exhaustion & Transfers
Addressing 2016 Geoff Huston APNIC.
IPv4.
Geoff Huston APNIC Labs May 2018
IP Addresses in 2016 Geoff Huston APNIC.
Routing and Addressing in 2017
More Specific Announcements in BGP
Geoff Huston APNIC 7th caida/wide measurement workshop Nov
Routing Table Status Report
IPv6 Address Space Management Report of IPv6 Registry Simulation
Geoff Huston September 2002
IPv6 Address Space Management Report of IPv6 Registry Simulation
Routing Table Status Report
IPv4 Address Lifetime Expectancy Revisited
2005 – A BGP Year in Review February 2006 Geoff Huston
Routing Table Status Report
Unadvertised Addresses in APNIC’s Registry
Routing Table Status Report
IPv4 Address Lifetime Expectancy
IPv6 Address Space Management A follow up to RIPE-261
Geoff Huston APNIC 7th caida/wide measurement workshop Nov
Presentation transcript:

Allocation vs Announcement A comparison of RIR IPv4 Allocation Records with Global Routing Announcements Geoff Huston February 2004 (Supported by APNIC)

Motivation Some years back a number of ISPs introduced prefix length filters on the routes they accepted from their peers This practice was taken up by others and is now widespead across the Internet The filters are typically based on observations of minimum allocation sizes of RIR allocations within /8 address blocks

Implications The generic assumption behind the use of these filters is that ISPs should globally advertise the RIR allocated address block as a single aggregate If more specific fragments of an RIR allocation are advertised for local resilience and traffic engineering reasons these should be scoped such that they do not spread globally

Question How accurate is this assumption that allocations and advertisements are aligned? Has this changed in recent times?

Methodology Compare the prefixes listed in the RIR delegated files (a log of allocations) with the prefixes contained in a dump of the BGP routing table

Recent RIR and BGP Data 4506 RIR IPv4 allocations (1 Jan Feb 2004) 865 allocations are NOT announced as yet 3641 allocations are announced routing advertisements are used to span these 3641 allocations Each RIR allocation generates an average of 3.0 routing advertisements

2003/2004 Data 3641 RIR allocations are advertised Of these:… Advertisements precisely match the RIR Allocation 7966 Advertisements are more specifics of 1206 RIR allocations 80% of RIR allocations are directly advertised as routing advertisements 20% of RIR allocations generate more specific advertisements Where more specifics are advertised there are 6.6 more specific advertisements for each RIR allocation

Prefix Length Distribution

Limiting the sample to 2004 Is this level of fragmentation of RIR Allocated address blocks getting better or worse in recent times? One way to look at this is to use a smaller data pool of very recent data and compare it with the larger pool already presented

2004 Data 520 RIR IPv4 allocations (up to 12 Feb 2004) 217 allocations are NOT announced as yet 303 allocations are announced 576 routing advertisements are used to span these 303 allocations Each RIR allocation generates an average of 1.9 routing advertisements

2004 Data (cont) 303RIR allocations are advertised Of these:… 257 Advertisements precisely match the RIR Allocation 309 Advertisements are more specifics of 67 RIR allocations 78% of RIR allocations are directly advertised as routing advertisements 22% of RIR allocations generate more specific advertisements Where more specifics are advertised there are 4.6 more specific advertisements for each RIR allocation

2004 Data – Prefix length Distribution

Trends of Fragmentation of Allocations The following graphs look at the entire data set of all RIR allocations and compare these to the current state of the routing table. The dates used in the analysis are the dates of the RIR allocation.

Prefix Length Distribution

Prefix Distribution

Allocations Advertised as is This graph plots the proportion of address allocations that are advertised as allocated. The lower the proportion the greater the amount of allocations that are advertised only as fragments. The higher the number the better (in terms of reduction in advertisement fragmentation) This has been improving since August 2000

Allocations Advertised as is

Number of Fragmentary Advertisements as a proportion of Allocations This compares the number of fragmentary advertisements to the number of RIR allocations. The lower the number, the better The proportion of fragmentation of allocated blocks has been dropping since August 2000

Number of Fragmentary Advertisements as a proportion of Allocations

Proportion of Allocations that are advertised in Fragments This compares the number of allocations against the number of allocations that are advertised in one or more fragments. The lower the number the smaller the amount of fragmentation of allocations Again there is a noticeable decline since August 2000

Proportion of Allocations that are advertised in Fragments

Just a reminder – BGP Routing Table Growth

Observations It appears that the major contributor to the growth of the routing table is the amount of advertisement fragmentation that occurs in allocated address space. This form of advertisement fragmentation peaked from 1997 – 2000 The levels of advertisement fragmentation have been improving since late 2000.

Observations Taking an allocated block and advertising more specific /24 address prefixes is the predominate form of advertising a split allocation block in fragments Many of these more specifics appear to be local (i.e. could be masked with NOEXPORT) One fifth of allocations are fragmented in this fashion, and, on average there are 6.6 additional advertisements of fragments of the address block /21, /22, /23 allocations have proportionately less advertised fragmentation than larger prefix sizes Levels of fragmentation of advertisements have been improving since late 2000, corresponding with a return to linear growth of the BGP routing table size.