Addressing 2016
0 likes113 views
The document discusses IPv6 and IPv4 addressing trends from 2012-2016. Some key points: - The top 5 countries for IPv6 allocations in 2016 had little visible deployment on the public internet. Less than 8% of allocated IPv6 is advertised in BGP. - IPv4 allocations shifted in the last years pre-exhaustion, with many allocations going to countries with limited routing visibility. There is a disparity between allocated and advertised address blocks across countries. - BGP data shows over 59,000 announcements changed between 2016-2017, with over 15,000 addresses rehomed and over 67,000 removed - many more than listed transfers. Address age analysis found 20%
Addressing 2016
- 3. 2017#apricot2017 IPv6 Allocations by RIRs 3
- 6. 2017#apricot2017 Where did the IPv6 addresses go? Volume of Allocated IPv6 Addresses (using units of /32s) per country, per year Rank 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 1 Argentina 4,178 United States 12,520 United States 5,213 South Africa 4,440 United Kingdom 9,571 2 Egypt 4,098 China 4,135 China 2,126 China 1,797 Germany 1,525 3 China 3,136 United Kingdom 784 United Kingdom 1,032 Germany 1,245 Netherlands 1,312 4 United States 1,337 Germany 663 Brazil 856 United Kingdom 1,204 United States 1,137 5 Italy 641 Russian 518 Germany 713 Netherlands 1,009 Russian Federation 1,005 6 Germany 452 Netherlands 480 Netherlands 694 Russian Federation 832 France 926 7 Russian Federation 413 Brazil 444 Russian Federation 636 Brazil 746 Brazil 727 8 United Kingdom 373 France 406 France 409 Italy 699 Spain 702 9 Canada 321 Italy 344 Italy 399 United States 640 Italy 679 10 Brazil 283 Switzerland 272 Switzerland 352 France 629 China 596
- 7. 2017#apricot2017 Where did the IPv6 addresses go? 2015 2016 South Africa 4,440 United Kingdom 9,571 China 1,797 Germany 1,525 Germany 1,245 Netherlands 1,312 United Kingdom 1,204 United States 1,137 Netherlands 1,009 Russian Federation 1,005 Russian Federation 832 France 926 Brazil 746 Brazil 727 taly 699 Spain 702 United States 640 Italy 679 France 629 China 596 IPv6 Adoption rate per country (%) 5 of the 10 largest IPv6 allocations have been made into countries with little in the way of visible current deployment in the public Internet
- 8. 2017#apricot2017 Advertised vs Unadvertised 8 Re-registration of the /18 BR IPv6 block in March 2013 in LACNIC
- 9. 2017#apricot2017 Advertised : Unadvertised (%) 9 Less than 8% of allocated IPv6 address space is visible as a BGP advertisement
- 10. 2017#apricot2017 Total IPv6 Holdings by country 10 Rank CC Allocated Advertised Ratio Country /32s /32s 1 US 43,030 138 0.3% USA 2 CN 21,196 29 0.1% China 3 GB 17,139 2,148 12.5% UK 4 DE 16,107 226 1.4% Germany 5 FR 11,432 38 0.3% France 6 JP 9,415 93 1.0% Japan 7 AU 8,864 4,109 46.4% Australia 8 IT 7,143 50 0.7% Italy 9 SE 5,736 4,148 72.3% Sweden 10 KR 5,251 29 0.6% Rep. Korea 11 NL 4,939 600 12.2% Netherlands 12 AR 4,793 4 0.1% Argentina 13 ZA 4,640 9 0.2% South Africa 14 EG 4,105 4 0.1% Egypt 15 RU 3,954 6 0.2% Russia 16 PL 3,740 31 0.8% Poland 17 BR 3,651 19 0.5% Brazil 18 ES 2,800 9 0.3% Spain 19 TW 2,359 2,159 91.5% Taiwan 20 CH 2,090 111 5.3% Switzerland 21 NO 1,618 286 17.7% Norway 22 IR 1,491 3 0.2% Iran 23 TR 1,326 1 0.1% Turkey 24 CZ 1,319 41 3.1% Czech Rep. 25 UA 1,082 1 0.1% Ukraine There is currently considerable disparity between countries as to the ratio between allocated and advertised IPv6 blocks. Taiwan, Sweden, Australia, Norway, UK and Netherlands appear to advertise a visible part of their allocated IPv6 address holdings Other countries have a far lower ratio of advertised to allocated address blocks Why?
- 12. 2017#apricot2017 Addressing V4 Exhaustion • We have been predicting that the exhaustion of the free pool of IPv4 addresses would eventually happen for the past 25 years! • And, finally, we’ve now hit the bottom of the address pool! – APNIC, RIPE NCC, LACNIC and ARIN are now empty of general use IPv4 addresses – RIPE and APNIC are operating a Last /8 – We now have just AFRINIC left with more than a /8 remaining
- 13. 2017#apricot2017 Allocations in the Last Years of IPv4 Pre Exhaustion Global Financial Crisis Exhaustion Profile
- 14. 2017#apricot2017 Where did the Addresses Go? Volume of Allocated IPv4 Addresses (using units of millions of /32s) per year Rank 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 1 China 28.2 USA 25.0 USA 24.5 USA 7.6 Morocco 3.1 2 Canada 16.7 Brazil 17.4 Brazil 10.9 Egypt 7.4 Seychelles 2.1 3 Brazil 8.4 Colombia 3.8 Morocco 2.6 Seychelles 2.1 USA 1.7 4 Russia 5.3 Argentina 1.6 Colombia 2.1 Sth Africa 2.0 China 1.3 5 Iran 4.5 Egypt 1.6 Sth Africa 1.7 Tunisia 1.8 Brazil 1.3 6 Germany 3.4 Canada 1.4 Egypt 1.6 Brazil 1.4 Sth Africa 1.2 7 Sth Africa 3.4 Nogeria 1.2 China 1.5 China 1.3 India 1.1 8 Italy 3.3 Chile 1.1 Canada 1.4 India 1.3 Egypt 1.1 9 Colombia 2.6 Mexico 1.1 Kenya 1.4 Canada 1.1 Kenya 1.1 10 Romania 2.6 Seychelles 1 Mexico 1.1 Ghana 0.6 Algeria 1.1
- 15. 2017#apricot2017 IPv4: Advertised vs Unadvertised
- 16. 2017#apricot2017 IPv4:Assigned vs Recovered Growth in Advertised Addresses Change in the Unadvertised Address Pool RIR Allocations 1.4 /8s 0.5 /8s
- 17. 2017#apricot2017 The IPv4 After-Market: Address Transfers • There is a considerable residual demand for IPv4 addresses following exhaustion – IPv6 is not a direct substitute for the lack of IPv4 • Some of this demand is pushed into using middleware that imposes address sharing (Carrier Grade NATS, Virtual Hosting, etc) • Where there is no substitute then we turn to the aftermarket • Some address transfers are “sale” transactions, and they are entered into the address registries • Some transfers take the form of “leases” where the lease holder’s details are not necessarily entered into the address registry
- 18. 2017#apricot2017 Registered Address Transfers Receiving RIR 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 ARIN 79 31 58 277 727 APNIC 255 206 437 514 581 RIPE NCC 10 171 1,050 2,852 2,411 Receiving RIR 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 ARIN 6,728,448 5,136,640 4,737,280 37,637,888 15,613,952 APNIC 3,434,496 2,504,960 4,953,088 9,836,288 7,842,816 RIPE NCC 65,536 1,977,344 9,635,328 10,835,712 9,220,864
- 19. 2017#apricot2017 How old are transferred addresses?
- 20. 2017#apricot2017 But The RIR Transfer Logs are not the entire story: – For example, the RIPE NCC’s address transfer logs appear not to contain records of transfers of legacy space – Address leases and similar “off market” address transactions are not necessarily recorded in the RIRs’ transfer logs Can BGP tell us anything about this missing data? 20
- 21. 2017#apricot2017 A BGP View of Addresses Lets compare a snapshot of the routing table at the start of 2016 with a snapshot taken at the end of the year. 21
- 22. 2017#apricot2017 BGP Changes Across 2016 22 Jan-16 Jan-17 Delta Unchanged Re-Home Removed Added Announcements 586,918 646,059 59,141 502,846 16,928 67,504 126,645 Root Prefixes 286,249 309,092 22,843 252,411 10,803 22,080 46,238 Address Span (/8s) 156.35 158.40 2.04 147.31 2.52 5.58 8.57 More Specifics 300,669 336,967 36,298 250,435 6,125 45,424 80,407 Address Count (/8s) 51.86 56.04 4.18 47.06 0.81 4.94 8.17
- 23. 2017#apricot2017 BGP Changes Across 2016 23 Jan-16 Jan-17 Delta Unchanged Re-Home Removed Added Announcements 586,918 646,059 59,141 502,846 16,928 67,504 126,645 Root Prefixes 286,249 309,092 22,843 252,411 10,803 22,080 46,238 Address Span (/8s) 156.35 158.40 2.04 147.31 2.52 5.58 8.57 More Specifics 300,669 336,967 36,298 250,435 6,125 45,424 80,407 Address Count (/8s) 51.86 56.04 4.18 47.06 0.81 4.94 8.17 Listed as Transferred UnListed Rehomed All 1,539 15,389 9% Root Prefixes 1,184 9,551 11% Removed All 3,287 64,287 5% Root Prefixes 1,877 20,203 9% Added All 8,663 117,982 7% Root Prefixes 4,617 41,621 10%
- 24. 2017#apricot2017 “Age” of Shifted Addresses 24 20% of all added addresses are under 18 months “old” 50% of all re-homed addresses are more than 10 years “old” 20% of all removed addresses are more than 20 years “old”
- 25. 2017#apricot2017 “Age” of Shifted Addresses 25 • Some 20% of addresses that changed their routing state in 2016 are “legacy” allocated addresses that are more than 20 years “old” • Addresses older than 20 years look to be more stable than the registry “norm” • Addresses allocated in the past 18 months are more likely to have been announced (naturally!) • Addresses that are 5 – 10 years old are more likely to have been removed from the routing system in 2016
- 26. 2017#apricot2017 • Some 10% of the announced address span changed its advertised behaviour in 2016 (advertised, withdrawn or re-homed) • Of these changed addresses: – Some 5% of this set of changed addresses are listed in the transfer logs, and have updated registry records – The disposition of the remaining changed addresses (95%) is not clearly understood with respect to the relevance of the current registry records for these addresses. 26 Address Movement and Registry Data
- 27. 2017#apricot2017 Address Movement and Registry Data • It is not clear from this analysis what has happened in the case of the other addresses. This could include: – ”normal” movement of edge networks between upstream providers (customer ‘churn’) – Occluded multi-homing – Address movement within a distributed edge network – Address leasing – Address transfers not recorded in the transfer registries 27
- 28. 2017#apricot2017 Leasing and the Registry Should we make address leasing arrangements explicit in the address registry? – For example, we could mark the distinction between the holder of the address (admin-c) and the current operator (tech-c) • Allow the admin-c and tech-c point to organization objects rather than person objects • The admin-c field would indicate to the organization object that is the holder of the address block • The tech-c field would point to the organization object that is the current operator (lessee) of the address block – Or we could add a leasee: field to indicate that • the object has been leased • The leasee: field would point to an organisation object that is the current operator (lessee) of the address block 28
- 29. 2017#apricot2017 RPKI and Leasing – When an address is leased then whose RPKI keys control the ROA? • The Lessee? • The Leasor? – And why not implement RFC7909 while we are at it? • What registry objects/fields could or should be signed by the admin org (leasor) and what could be signed by the tech org (the lessee) 29
- 30. 2017#apricot2017 Registry Changes and APNIC Policies • Do we need an Address Policy SIG decision to proceed with making address lease arrangements explicit in the registry in some manner? – If so, what does the SIG require? • If not, then what process should we use to bring leasing arrangements out into the clear, in order to remove the current uncertainty over the distinction between the organisation who has administrative control of a resource and the organisation that currently has operational control? 30