1 / 23

LIR Survey Results (Supporting data for “ Application of the HD ratio to IPv4” proposal)

This document provides the results of the APNIC LIR Survey regarding the proposal to apply the HD ratio to IPv4. The survey collected feedback on the difficulty in reaching 80% utilization and explored the possibility of replacing fixed utilization with a variable HD ratio. The survey findings suggest that the HD approach is applicable, regardless of network size or complexity.

terrir
Download Presentation

LIR Survey Results (Supporting data for “ Application of the HD ratio to IPv4” proposal)

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. 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 • http://www.apnic.net/docs/policy/proposals/ • No clear support or disagreement with proposal • Action on secretariat • “pol-18-001: 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 • 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

  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 surveyed 35 All respondants Respondants with 80% problems 30 25 Number of instances 20 15 10 5 0 Very small Small Medium Large Very large Extra large Membership category

  9. All respondants Respondants with 80% problems Responses by member economy 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 Number of responses 5 4 3 2 1 0 AS AU CK CN FJ ID IN JP KR PH PK TH TW VN VU Economy

  10. All respondants Respondants with 80% problems Number of PoPs 16 14 12 10 Frequency 8 6 4 2 0 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. All respondants Respondants with 80% problems Service categories 35 30 25 20 Number of responses 15 10 5 0 Dial up Broadband IP phones Web Co location IDC Gaming Wireless Lease line DSL hosting Service type

  12. All respondants Respondants with 80% problems Number of service categories offered 20 18 16 14 12 Frequency 10 8 6 4 2 0 1 2 3 4 5 Number of services offered

  13. All respondants Respondants with 80% problems Address distribution models 30 25 20 Frequency 15 10 5 0 1 – Geographic location 2 - Customer type 3 - Product 4 - Others IPv4 address distribution model

  14. All respondants Respondants with 80% problems No. of address distribution models used 30 25 20 Frequency 15 10 5 0 1 2 3 Number of IPv4 address deployment models used

  15. All respondants Respondants with 80% problems Types of NAT use 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Don't use NAT Infrastructure Customer network

  16. All respondants Respondants with 80% problems Reasons for NAT use 40 35 30 25 Count 20 15 10 5 0 Conservation Security Lack of IP’s Customer Policy issues Don’t use sevice Reasons for NAT use

  17. Service types vs hierarchy 6 5 4 Hierarchy 3 2 1 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Number of service categories offered Weak trend: more services types implies more hierarchy

  18. PoPs vs hierarchy 6 5 4 Hierarchy 3 2 1 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Number of PoPs Weak trend: more PoPs require more hierarchy

  19. Member size vs hierarchy 6 5 4 Hierarchy 3 2 1 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Member size No strong trend. All member-sizes have range of hierarchies

  20. Address deployment vs hierarchy 6 5 4 3 Hierarchy 2 1 0 0 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!

More Related