Re: [hostmaster-staff] Re: NIR Operational Policies DRAFT

[Anne Lord <anne@apnic.net>]

Dear Izumi San and your colleagues,

Many thanks for your careful comments and feedback - you raise some
important issues.

My comments are below:

> We just have a few questions and comments from JPNIC.
> 
> Section 2.3 
> 
>  "A National Internet Registry .....  which are generally LIRs
>  organized at a national level."
> 
>  How about stating as "IRs organized at a national level."?
  
Yes this can be changed.

> 3.2.1 Allocation Request
> 
>  Just to confirm, there will be no evaluation at all from APNIC
>  hostmasters for allocations under or equal to NIRs' allocation
>  window, or there may be some simple questions depending on cases?
  
No, there will be no questions for the allocations within or equal to 
the NIRs allocation window. The allocation will be made entirely based
on NIR recommendations.
 
>  This may not be necessary to be stated in the document, but we are
>  wondering how to register for in-addr-apra zone in practice for each
>  allocations to NIR-LIR members.
  
So far, we had imagined that existing procedures would apply. This probably
does need to be stated in the document.

So for example APNIC receives a request for allocation to a JPNIC member. 
This will be registered in the APNIC database as an allocation to JPNIC.
JPNIC will create a domain object for the DNS to be delegated to JPNIC. 
JPNIC then create an allocation object in their database, and delegate 
DNS appropriately to their member. 

Do you have an alternative solution?

>  It would be cumbersome to register in NIR's zone file and register in
>  APNIC DB for each allocation, so, woudld a reverse delegation zone
>  and address block reserved for example, in /16 basis for NIRs?

Hmm this might be hard.  The idea of the new scheme is to enable your
members to have access to contiguous allocations.  So of course some 
address space will be reserved for them. But it is only reserved for a
limited period of time. Currently with APNIC direct members, we do not
delegate DNS until an actual allocation has been made. So unfortunately
this cant be done.  The only other way which is slightly less cumbersome
might be some technical solution whereby we can automatically generate 
these objects for the NIR, thereby reducing your workload (but this 
would have to be discussed in detail with the technical team). 
The other possibility would be to delegate the DNS generation to 
your customers directly - but i dont know how all the NIRS would feel 
about that?

I think this will need more discussion at the meeting.

> 3.3 Database
> 
>  "An NIR may choose to operate a "whois" database...". 
> 
>  By this, do you mean NIRs do to not need to to set up whois
>  database for both IPv4 and IPv6, or whois for IPv4 address is a must
>  but not required for IPv6?

No. It is not envisaged that it is required for either IPv4 or IPv6.
The choice is left up to the NIR. 
 
>  This may not make a differenct for the existing NIRs but may be
>  a big issue for new NIRs.
> 
> Section 4.2 Transfer of Membership from NIR to APNIC
> 
>  We got the impression that No. 4 is not consistent with
>  the idea of direct allocation to NIR-LIR members from APNIC. 
> 
>  If NIRs no longer have their own free pools, we think there is no
>  need to receive "an allocation of address space from APNIC which is
>  equal in size to the transferred address space" as all the address
>  pool is in the common APNIC pool.
  
I agree. This part of the document does need to change. Thank you for
spotting this.

>  This again may not be necessary to be stated in the document, but we
>  are wondering how to register for reverse DNS if an NIR-LIR member
>  requests to tranfer /20 address block out of /16 we have registered
>  in reverse DNS.

It would have to be split on the /24 boundaries. This should be 
included in the document.

>  We suppose we must return the reverse delegation of the tranfered
>  address to APNIC, but it does not seem very practical to resolve the
>  /16 registration with APNIC just for this allocation, and register
>  again the remainder of the allocation block in /24s. Please advice if
>  you have other solutions.
  
No, unfortunately we dont. If you do, please let me know :). I think
we are rather limited by the classfulness of the DNS and by the structure
of delegation vs. a vs. RIR-NIR-LIR.

Anyways if you have other ideas, they would be most welcome.

Warm thanks to the JPNIC IP team for the feedback. 

Anne
--
> 
> From: Anne Lord <anne@apnic.net>
> Subject: NIR Operational Policies DRAFT
> Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2002 16:33:55 +1000
> 
> > 
> > Dear NIR members of APNIC,
> > 
> > Attached is the first draft of the document :
> > 
> > "Operational Policies for National Internet Registries operating in the 
> > APNIC region"
> > 
> > This will be presented at the forthcoming Open NIR meeting in Japan. The 
> > document describes the procedural interactions between APNIC and the NIR. 
> > It does not discuss address policies.
> > 
> > Feedback from the NIRs on this document is particularly welcomed.
> > 
> > I would like to ask that feedback is sent to this list no later than Monday 
> > 26th August, so as to allow sufficient time to incorporate changes into the 
> > document prior to the meeting.
> > 
> > Many thanks and Kind regards,
> > 
> > Anne
> > _____________________________________________________________________
> > Anne Lord, Manager, Policy Liaison                  <anne@apnic.net>
> > Asia Pacific Network Information Centre    ph/fx: +61 7 3858 3100/99
> > See you at the 14th APNIC Open Policy Meeting      Kitakyushu, Japan
> > http://www.apnic.net/meetings/                    3-6 September 2002
> > _____________________________________________________________________
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >   
> *    Mailing List: hostmaster-staff                                    *
> *    Handled by majordomo@staff.apnic.net                              *
>