I wrote to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List: http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/ppml/2007-November/009778.html
inviting people to join the RRG. One member of the ARIN Advisory Council responded appreciatively: "Thank you Robin for you invitation and your work in this area." There is a lively discussion on PPML about "Effects of explosive routing table growth on ISP behavior" and I titled my message "IRTF RRG: finer allocation of IPv4 space". I hope I represented the work of the RRG reasonably well and did not give the impression I had any official standing in the RRG. We have five ITR-ETR proposals which are well enough defined to permit detailed critiques, comparisons and discussion. However, things have been pretty quiet of late. I am the only person to have attempted a comparison or critique of of the proposals. I haven't yet compared TRRP with the others. It is nearly 4 months since my Ivip proposal became available as an Internet Draft - and 3 weeks since I proposed a solution to the PMTUD problems faced by all these ITR-ETR proposals: http://www.firstpr.com.au/ip/ivip/pmtud-frag/ However, to date there has been no meaningful critique of either of these two proposals. I am not criticising any individuals, since I figure we are all volunteers and have limits on the time and energy we can devote to this project. I still have things I want to write in response to previous discussions. I think it would be good to get some more people involved. Especially those who are wrangling with RIR policies, facing something of a train-wreck in the IPv4 area, and with IPv6 being as awkward as ever to adopt - and providing no relief from the need for more and more networks with IPv4 space. Would anyone object to me writing a similar message to the RIPE Address Policy list? Perhaps someone else could invite participation in the RRG? Are there any other places we might seek more hands on deck for the Good Ship RRG? I know the "crisis in routing and addressing" stuff we are working on relates largely to scalability of the BGP routing system, and is not explicitly tied to IPv4 address depletion, but I am adamant that: 1 - IPv4 address depletion is the most urgent architectural problem facing the Internet - and far better recognised than BGP stability and router scaling problems with the growth of advertised prefixes. 2 - All the ITR-ETR schemes are capable of slicing and dicing IPv4 address space in many more pieces, and in finer pieces, than is ever likely to be practical with BGP. 3 - Therefore, any of the ITR-ETR schemes could make a major contribution to the more efficient utilisation of IPv4 space. 4 - We are stuck with IPv4 for the next decade or so. IPv6 provides few, if any, benefits for ordinary end-users, is complex and is not ubiquitously supported by applications, firewalls etc. No ordinary Internet user is likely to be happy with an IPv6-only address in the foreseeable future. 5 - IPv4 address space utilisation could easily be improved if there were suitable policies and slicing and dicing technologies. Ping responsive host rates in advertised space are around 4%: http://www.isi.edu/ant/address/ http://www.isi.edu/~johnh/PAPERS/Heidemann07c.pdf http://www.firstpr.com.au/ip/host-density-per-prefix/ Geoff Huston estimates the host utilisation rate is 5 to 20%: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-55/presentations/huston-ipv4.pdf So there is plenty of room for improvement. We are attempting to devise something really challenging here - and I think more expertise, more energy and wider perspectives would be very helpful. - Robin -- to unsubscribe send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg
