[governance] IPv6 address allocations to DOD - 247 billion or 42

[McTim]

Hi Ian,

On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 7:46 AM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
>
>
> 42,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.
>
> That's how many IPv6 addresses have been allocated to US DOD according to
> the link below - and that's significantly more than large telcos.

Woohoo, those are big numbers indeed.  However, while not my job to
defend ARIN, I can perhaps offer some perspective that may make this
seem more reasonable.

First, all numbers in IPv6 are large, that is by design.

2nd, In IPv6, one wants to think in terms of subnets and not
individual addresses.  So if DoD is assigning /48 subnets, a /16 is
"only" 4G (roughly one billion) /48s.

3rd, the ARIN Number Resource Policy Manual,
(https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html)
which specifies how allocations are made says. inter alia;

6.4.4. Consideration of IPv4 Infrastructure

"Where an existing IPv4 service provider requests IPv6 space for
eventual transition of existing services to IPv6, the number of
present IPv4 customers may be used to justify a larger request than
would be justified if based solely on the IPv6 infrastructure."

Now, a quick search of ARIN Whois at https://www.arin.net shows 126
ASNs for the DOD.

So if you divide the 4G by 126, you get around 31 million /48 subnets
per ASN.  Of course, some networks will not get that amount, and some
will get much more.  When one takes into account RFID and things like
sensor nets for everything from auto parts tracking, to canteens, dog
tags, weapons, etc, etc, one can see why one may want to have such a
large amount of address space.

>
> http://royal.pingdom.com/2009/03/26/the-us-department-of-defense-has-42-mill
> ion-billion-billion-billion-ipv6-addresses/
>
> Even if this is factually incorrect, plenty of sources put the number of
> addresses allocated at 247 billion.

This would be very incorrect, as each allocation of a /32 (standard
size unless you can show that you need more) contains
79,228,162,514,264,337,593,543,950,336 possible IPs, but again, that's
IPv4 think, we should rather think in terms of prefix sizes.

>
> Eg
> http://gcn.com/Articles/2007/02/03/DOD-to-allocate-its-IPv6-addresses.aspx?P
> age=1


The articles leads with:

"The Defense Department has acquired a block of 247 billion IP Version
6 addresses, about equal to 25 percent of the entire IPv4 address
space. "

If you know that there are ~4 billion possible IPv4 addresses, you
know that 25% of that is around 1 Billion, NOT 247 billion, so take
this info with a whole bag of salt, not just with a pinch.  In other
words, don't believe everything you read online.

>
> In either case, the number is huge, in excess of allocations to bodies who
> have greater neeeds for IP numbers, and hardly allocated on the basis of
> need.

Is this speculation on your part or statement of fact?

>
> I wonder if someone can let us know the correct number allocated or reserved
> for US DOD use? It would also be useful to know how the decision on the
> allocation was taken.

https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_XIX/mem_notes.html says:

"An attendee asked about the Department of Defense justification and
qualification of a /12. Leslie corrected the statement, saying the
organization had qualified for 4 /16s. ARIN President and CEO Ray
Plzak responded that the justification underwent intense scrutiny and
the RSA negotiation lasted more than a year. ARIN Counsel Steve Ryan
added that the agreement contains the provision indicating that the
department will return unused IPv4 resources that the Department
decides are not necessary for U.S. Government use. He also pointed out
that it will help move the US economy toward IPv6 because the
Department's contractor base will need to operate IPv6."

So the answer is 4 /16s or 1 /14.  Allocations are made according to
the policies in the NRPM.  I doubt this one was any different.

>
> If the number was simply allocated because it was asked for, that seems a
> very naïve decision in an age where claims of information imperialism are
> being made. Surely someone in the relevant internet governance area (ARIN?)
> would have thought about the policy implications?

Do you mean policy or political ;)

>
> Or if there was simply no choice - US DOD gets what it wants, no questions
> asked, questions need to be raised about the independence of internet
> governance structures.

As cited above, questions were asked and answered for a whole year!

>
> Yes I know, there are plenty of numbers available (they said that with IPv4
> as well). But that's hardly the point.

What is the point exactly? Proportionally speaking the DoD now has a
very small fraction of the address space compared to what it has in
IPv4.

>
> Can someone enlighten us with the details of this allocation and how it was
> made?

Done, hopefully.

NB: All numbers done on the back of a fag packet, or in my head, so YMMV.

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t