Module 6: IPv6 Fundamentals. Introduction to IPv6 Unicast IPv6 Addresses Configuring IPv6.
IPv6 HD Ratio · 2017. 6. 18. · described in RFC 1715 – no further analysis of the underlying...
Transcript of IPv6 HD Ratio · 2017. 6. 18. · described in RFC 1715 – no further analysis of the underlying...
1
IPv6 HD Ratio
ARIN Public Policy MeetingApril 2005
Geoff HustonAPNIC
2
Background• Current IPv6 Address Allocation policies refer to the
use of the Host Density Ratio as a metric for‘acceptable’ utilization of address space
• Original Def’n: RFC 1715• Re-stated Def’n: RFC 3194
• Current IPv6 Address Allocation policies use an HD-Ratio value of 0.8 as an allocation threshold value
• Why 0.8?• This value is based on a small number of case studies
described in RFC 1715 – no further analysis of the underlyingmodel or the selection of an appropriate threshold value as anIP network efficiency metric has been published
• Does this HD-Ratio value provide “reasonable”outcomes in terms of address utilization?
3
The HD Ratio Metric• IPv4 fixed 80% Density
Host-Count / Address-Count = 0.8
• IPv6 0.8 HD Ratiolog(Host-Count) / log(Address-Count)= 0.8
Under the HD-Ratio, the overall address utilization efficiency levelfalls exponentially in line with the size of the address block. Largeallocations have a very small density threshold, while smallerallocations have a much higher threshold.
4
IPv4 / IPv6 Allocation equivalence table
End Customer Size IPv4 Allocation IPv6 Allocation
205 /24 /32
410 /23 /32
819 /22 /32
1638 /21 /32
3277 /20 /32
7131 /18 /32
12416 /18 /31
21618 /17 /30
37640 /16 /29
65536 /15 /28
114104 /14 /27
198668 /14 /26
345901 /13 /25
602248 /12 /24
1048576 /11 /23
1825676 /10 /22
3178688 /10 /21
5534417 /9 /20
9635980 /8 /19
16777216 /7 /18
Host Count 80% HD = 0.8
5
IPv6 Address Efficiency Table
IPv6 Block Size HD = 0.8 Address
Prefix (/48s) Host Count Efficiency
/32 65,536 7,132 11%
/31 131,072 12,417 9%
/30 262,144 21,619 8%
/29 524,288 37,641 7%
/28 1,048,576 65,536 6%
/27 2,097,152 114,015 5%
/26 4,194,304 198,668 5%
/25 8,388,608 345,901 4%
/24 16,777,216 602,249 4%
/23 33,554,432 1,048,576 3%
/22 67,108,864 1,825,677 3%
/21 134,217,728 3,178,688 2%
/20 268,435,456 5,534,417 2%
/19 536,870,912 9,635,980 2%
/18 1,073,741,824 16,777,216 2%
Using a fixed 16 bit subnet length
6
Modelling the HD Ratio• Does this HD Ratio value produce
reasonable outcomes?• The approach reported here is to look atrecent IPv4 allocation data, and simulate anequivalent IPv6 registry operating user asimilar address demand profile
7
IPv6 Registry simulation exercise• Use recent RIR IPv4 allocation data to create a
demand model of an IPv6 address registry• Assume a sequence of IPv6 transactions based on
a demand model derived from the sequence ofrecorded IPv4 allocations
• Convert IPv4 to IPv6 allocations by assuming anequivalence of an IPv4 end-user-assignment of a/32 with an IPv6 end-user-assignment of a /48
• IPv4 uses a constant host density of 80% while IPv6uses a HD-Ratio of 0.8
• Use a minimum IPv6 allocation unit of a /32• Assume IPv4 allocation timeframe mean of 12
months
8
Allocation Simulation ResultsIPv6 Registry Allocation SImulation - 2002 - 2005
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
0 6 12 18 24 30 36
Month
/32
co
un
t (c
um
ula
tiv
e)
all
apnic
ripencc
arin
lacnic
afrinic
9
Allocation Simulation results
Registry Allocations
12
16
20
24
28
32
0 6 12 18 24 30 36
Months
Pre
fix
Siz
e
AFRINIC
LACNIC
RIPENCC
ARIN
APNIC
ALL
10
Prefix DistributionPrefix Length Distribution HD = 0.8
1
10
100
1000
10000
100000
/18 /19 /20 /21 /22 /23 /24 /25 /26 /27 /28 /29 /30 /31 /32
11
HD Ratio Observations• One interpretation of the HD Ratio is that
it corresponds to a network model wherean additional component of internalnetwork hierarchy is introduced for eachdoubling of the address block size
• A HD Ratio of 0.8 corresponds to anetwork with a per-level efficiency of70%, and adding an additional level ofhierarchy as the network increases insize by a factor of 8
12
Hierarchical Network Model
Region
POP
Product
Network
Region Region
ProductProduct
POP POP
Customer Customer Customer
13
Comparison of HD Ratio andCompound Hierarchy
HD vs Stepped
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32
Prefix (bit size)
Eff
icie
nc
y
HD Ratio 0.8
Stepped 70%
14
Interpreting the HD Ratio• For a /32 allocation the 0.8 HD ratio is
comparable to 6 levels of internal hierarchywith 70% efficiency at each level
• For a /24 this corresponds to an internalnetwork hierarchy of 9 levels, each at 70%efficiency
• Altering the HD Ratio effectively alterscomparable model rate of growth in internallevels of network hierarchy
15
HD = 0.94• This corresponds to a network model
that uses base efficiency of 0.75 at eachlevel of internal network structure, with anew level of hierarchy added for eachadditional 5 bits of address prefix length(x 32)
16
Varying the HD Ratio
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
/48 /44 /40 /36 /32 /28 /24 /20 /16 /12 /8 /4
0.80
HDtotalLog
utilizedLog=
)(
)(
0.98
0.96
0.94
0.90
/32
/20
10.9%2.1%
51.4%
31.2%
Prefix Size
Util
izat
ion
Effi
cien
cy
17
Varying the HD Ratio – DetailAddress Efficiency - /32 through to /18
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
Prefix length (bits)
Eff
icie
nc
y
0.99
0.98
0.97
0.96
0.95
0.94
0.93
0.92
0.91
0.9
0.89
0.88
0.87
0.86
0.85
0.84
0.83
0.82
0.81
0.8
Stepped
Fixed
18
Varying the HD Ratio – Total AddressConsumption
Varying the HD-Ratio
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
180,000
0.8 0.82 0.84 0.86 0.88 0.9 0.92 0.94 0.96 0.98 1
HD Ratio
To
tal A
dd
ress C
on
su
mp
tio
n (
/32s)
19
Allocation Simulation – HD = 0.94
IPv6 Registry Allocation SImulation - 2002 - 2005
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
0 6 12 18 24 30 36
Month
/32
co
un
t (c
um
ula
tiv
e)
all
apnic
ripencc
arin
lacnic
afrinic
20
Allocation Simulation – HD = 0.94Registry Allocations (HD = 0.94)
12
16
20
24
28
32
0 6 12 18 24 30 36
Months
Pre
fix
Siz
e
AFRINIC
LACNIC
RIPENCC
ARIN
APNIC
ALL
21
Prefix Distribution – HD = 0.94Prefix Length Distribution HD = 0.94
1
10
100
1000
10000
100000
/18 /19 /20 /21 /22 /23 /24 /25 /26 /27 /28 /29 /30 /31 /32
22
Comparison of prefix size distributions
1
10
100
1000
10000
100000
/18 /19 /20 /21 /22 /23 /24 /25 /26 /27 /28 /29 /30 /31 /32
Comparison of Prefix Distributions
HD = 0.8
HD = 0.87
HD = 0.94
23
Observations• 80% of all allocations are /31 and /32 for HD ratio of
0.8 or higher• Changing the HD ratio will not impact most allocations in a
steady state registry function
• Only 2% of all allocations are larger than a /27• For these larger allocations the target efficiency is lifted from
4% to 25% by changing the HD Ratio from 0.8 to 0.94 (25% isequivalent to 5 levels of internal hierarchy each with 75%efficiency)
• Total 3 year address consumption is reduced by afactor of 10 in changing the HD ratio from 0.8 to 0.94
24
What is a “good” HD Ratio to use?• Consider what is common practice in today’s
network in terms of internal architecture• APNIC is conducting a survey of ISPs in the region on network
structure and internal levels of address hierarchy and willpresent the findings at APNIC 20
• Define a common ‘baseline’ efficiency level ratherthan an average attainable level
• What value would be readily achievable by large and smallnetworks without resorting to renumbering or unacceptableinternal route fragmentation?
• Consider overall longer term objectives• Anticipated address pool lifetime• Anticipated impact on the routing space
25
Thank you
Questions?