1. Policy SIG 8 Sep 2005 APNIC20, Hanoi, Vietnam Save Vocea
LIR Survey Results (Supporting data for “Application of the HD ratio to IPv4” proposal)
Policy SIG
8 Sep 2005
APNIC20, Hanoi, Vietnam
Save Vocea

2. Why an LIR survey? Application of the HD ratio to IPv4 [prop-020-v001]
Feedback that 80% utilisation is difficult to reach
Replace fixed 80% with variable utilisation (HD ratio)
Presented at APNIC18
No clear support or disagreement with proposal
Action on secretariat
“pol : Secretariat, with assistance from NIRs, to conduct a survey of ISPs' resource management practices to allow a better understanding of issues”
Motivation
To provide a better service to members

3. Recap…
HD ratio states
Increasing hierarchy in network leads to decreasing efficiency in addressing
HD ratio value matches % utilisation which decreases as size of address space grow

4. LIR survey questions

5. Details of LIR survey Design phase Qualitative not quantitative
Consulted network operators (APNIC19, by phone)
Qualitative not quantitative
Face to face interviews
Conducted with assistance of NIRs and APNIC training team
Many thanks to both
Opportunity to ask “extra” questions
NAT, IPv6
Responses
67 respondents in total
15 different economies
Profile reflected that of APNIC membership

6. Survey summary Number of responses 67 Economies Represented 15
IPv6 Deployed
(and at least planned) 8
(30)
12%
(45%)
Members experiencing problems with 80% policy 27
40%
Use of NAT

7. Methodology for analysis
Use ‘hierarchy’ measures as key to HD impacts
If trends show relationship with hierarchy then very likely that HD ratio addresses this
Focus on 80% issues respondents
Suggests applicability of HD approach
Considered
Existing use of IPv6 and NAT
Member tier
Address management models
Service type offering, geographic location (PoP), technology type

8. Member categories surveyed35
All respondants
Respondants with 80% problems 30 25
Number of instances 20 15 10 5
Very small
Small
Medium
Large
Very large
Extra large
Membership category

9. Responses by member economy12
All respondants
Respondants with 80% problems 11 10 9 8 7 6
Number of responses 5 4 3 2 1 AS AU CK CN FJ ID IN JP KR PH PK TH TW VN VU
Economy

10. Number of PoPs Frequency Number of PoPs All respondants16
All respondants
Respondants with 80% problems 14 12 10
Frequency 8 6 4 2 1 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50
Number of PoPs

11. Service categories Number of responses Service type All respondants35
All respondants
Respondants with 80% problems 30 25 20
Number of responses 15 10 5
Dial up
Broadband
IP phones
Web
Co location
IDC
Gaming
Wireless
Lease line
DSL
hosting
Service type

12. Number of service categories offered20
All respondants
Respondants with 80% problems 18 16 14 12
Frequency 10 8 6 4 2 1 2 3 4 5
Number of services offered

13. Address distribution models30
All respondants
Respondants with 80% problems 25 20
Frequency 15 10 5
1 – Geographic location
2 - Customer type
3 - Product
4 - Others
IPv4 address distribution model

14. No. of address distribution models used30
All respondants
Respondants with 80% problems 25 20
Frequency 15 10 5 1 2 3
Number of IPv4 address deployment models used

15. Types of NAT use 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 Don't use NAT Infrastructure
All respondants
Respondants with 80% problems 35 30 25 20 15 10 5
Don't use NAT
Infrastructure
Customer network

16. Reasons for NAT use Count Reasons for NAT use 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5
All respondants
Respondants with 80% problems 35 30 25
Count 20 15 10 5
Conservation
Security
Lack of IP’s
Customer
Policy issues
Don’t use
sevice
Reasons for NAT use

17. Service types vs hierarchy6 5 4
Hierarchy 3 2 1 1 2 3 4 5 6
Number of service categories offered
Weak trend: more services types implies more hierarchy

18. PoPs vs hierarchy Weak trend: more PoPs require more hierarchy6 5 4
Hierarchy 3 2 1 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
100
Number of PoPs
Weak trend: more PoPs require more hierarchy

19. Member size vs hierarchy6 5 4
Hierarchy 3 2 1 1 2 3 4 5 6
Member size
No strong trend. All member-sizes have range of hierarchies

20. Address deployment vs hierarchy6 5 4 3
Hierarchy 2 1 1 2 3 4
Number of IPv4 address deployment models used
No Trend. Range of address deployment models used

21. Conclusion from survey
Total of 40% reported problems reaching 80% utilisation
No correlation between problems and network size or complexity
Measured as
No. of PoPs
No. of services deployed
No. of levels of hierarchy

22. Next steps? Do we need to widen the sample size?
Should this proposal cease?
Continue discussions on the list?
Wait and see - situations in other RIRs

23. Questions?
Thank you!