LIR Survey Results (Supporting data for “Application of ...
Transcript of LIR Survey Results (Supporting data for “Application of ...
1
LIR Survey Results(Supporting data for “Application of
the HD ratio to IPv4” proposal)
Policy SIG 8 Sep 2005
APNIC20, Hanoi, VietnamSave 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 managementpractices 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 todecreasing efficiency in addressing
–HD ratio value matches % utilisation whichdecreases as size of address space grow
)log(
)log(
addresses total
addresses host utilised=HD
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
12%(45%)
8(30)
IPv6 Deployed (and at least planned)
40%27Use of NAT
67Number of responses
15Economies Represented
40%27Members experiencingproblems with 80% policy
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
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Very small Small Medium Large Very large Extra large
Membership category
Num
ber o
f ins
tanc
es
All respondantsRespondants w ith 80% problems
9
Responses by member economy
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
AS AU CK CN FJ ID IN JP KR PH PK TH TW VN VU
Economy
Num
ber o
f res
pons
es
All respondantsRespondants w ith 80% problems
10
Number of PoPs
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
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
Freq
uenc
y
All respondantsRespondants w ith 80% problems
11
Service categories
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Dial up Broadband IP phones Webhosting
Co location IDC Gaming Wireless Lease line DSL
Service type
Num
ber o
f res
pons
es
All respondantsRespondants w ith 80% problems
12
Number of service categoriesoffered
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
1 2 3 4 5
Number of services offered
Freq
uenc
y
All respondantsRespondants w ith 80% problems
13
Address distribution models
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
1 – Geographic location
2 - Customer type 3 - Product 4 - Others
IPv4 address distribution model
Freq
uenc
y
All respondantsRespondants w ith 80% problems
14
No. of address distribution modelsused
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
1 2 3
Number of IPv4 address deployment models used
Freq
uenc
y
All respondantsRespondants w ith 80% problems
15
Types of NAT use
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Don't use NAT Infrastructure Customer network
All respondantsRespondants w ith 80% problems
16
Reasons for NAT use
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Conservation Security Lack of IP’s Customersevice
Policy issues Don’t use
Reasons for NAT use
Cou
nt
All respondantsRespondants w ith 80% problems
17
Service types vs hierarchy
Weak trend: more services types implies more hierarchy
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Number of service categories offered
Hie
rarc
hy
18
PoPs vs hierarchy
Weak trend: more PoPs require more hierarchy
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Number of PoPs
Hie
rarc
hy
19
Member size vs hierarchy
No strong trend. All member-sizes have range of hierarchies
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Member size
Hie
rarc
hy
20
Address deployment vs hierarchy
No Trend. Range of address deployment models used
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0 1 2 3 4
Number of IPv4 address deployment models used
Hie
rarc
hy
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