[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [sig-policy] [Sig-policy] prop-062-v001: Use of final /8
JPNIC support this proposal as a way to help address issues after IPv4
address exhaustion.
There was also general support from LIRs in Japan with a few suggestions:
+ To prevent an LIR from setting up new organizations to receive
multiple /22s, a suggestion was made to add the criteria that if a
single organization uses multiple /22 from the last /8 block, it
should be subject to review. (and may be requested to return)
+ A comment was made that (although it is consistent with the mimimum
allocation size)a /22 is too small even to be used in conjuction with
NAT/other technologies. /21 or /20 would be more desirable as a /22
can only support about 4,000 customers if using career grade NAT
which supports 200 ports per customer. This is not enough to support
the business.
As I mentioned, most LIRs in Japan support the proposal, but there were
also a few who feel we should distribute the space as it is - Just
sharing the situation.
izumi
JPNIC
zhangjian wrote:
> Dear SIG members
>
>
>
> The policy proposal 'Use of final /8' has been sent to the Policy SIG
>
> for review. It will be presented at the Policy SIG at APNIC 26 in
>
> Christchurch, New Zealand, 25-29 August 2008.
>
> The proposal's history can be found at:
>
>
>
> http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-062-v001.html
>
>
>
> We invite you to review and comment on the proposal on the mailing
>
> list before the meeting.
>
>
>
> The comment period on the mailing list before an APNIC meeting is an
>
> important part of the policy development process. We encourage you to
>
> express your views on the proposal:
>
>
>
> - Do you support or oppose this proposal?
>
>
>
> - Does this proposal solve a problem you are experiencing? If
>
> so,
>
> tell the community about your situation.
>
>
>
> - Do you see any disadvantages in this proposal?
>
>
>
> - Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear?
>
>
>
> - What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more
>
> effective?
>
>
>
> randy and jian
>
>
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
>
> __
>
>
>
> prop-062-v001: Use of final /8
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
>
> __
>
>
>
>
>
> Authors: Philip Smith
>
> pfs@cisco.com
>
>
>
> Jonny Martin
>
> jonny@jonnynet.net
>
>
>
> Randy Bush
>
> randy@psg.com
>
>
>
> Version: 1
>
>
>
> Date: 15 July 2008
>
>
>
>
>
> 1. Introduction
>
> ----------------
>
>
>
> This proposal describes how APNIC should handle the final /8 which
>
> would be allocated to it by the IANA under a successful implementation
>
> of prop-055, "Global policy for the allocation of the remaining IPv4
>
> address space" [1].
>
>
>
> The proposal seeks to ensure that new and existing LIRs can receive a
>
> minimum amount of IPv4 address space to assist with their
>
> participation in the Internet industry as the industry transitions to
>
> using the IPv6 protocol over the next few years.
>
>
>
>
>
> 2. Summary of current problem
>
> ------------------------------
>
>
>
> The IANA IPv4 address pool is diminishing rapidly. If prop-055 is
>
> implemented globally, each RIR will receive a /8 to be used once the
>
> remaining IANA IPv4 pool has been depleted. One of the goals of
>
> prop-055 was that each RIR could then use its allocated /8 in a way
>
> that suits the individual needs of its community.
>
>
>
> In APNIC's case, the intention of the proposal's authors is to use the
>
> final /8 to reduce the surprise incurred by new LIRs during the
>
> transition from the IPv4 to IPv6 protocol.
>
>
>
> The Internet will still use IPv4 for several years during the adoption
>
> of IPv6. During this period new LIRs will need to participate in the
>
> IPv4 Internet while they deploy services using the IPv6 Internet.
>
>
>
> Inability to participate directly in the IPv4 Internet inhibits new
>
> LIRs' ability to provide service. If this were to happen, new LIRs
>
> would have to resort to address translation devices to map the private
>
> IPv4 address space they use into the public address space received
>
> from their upstream providers.
>
>
>
> Existing APNIC policy regarding the distribution of IPv4 address space
>
> makes no allowance for IPv4 allocations to new LIRs after the IANA
>
> pool is exhausted.
>
>
>
> Without any particular policy for this address block, APNIC's normal
>
> IPv4 allocation rules would apply. It is quite feasible, for example,
>
> that one organisation could consume the entire final /8 address block
>
> delegated to APNIC by IANA, negating the purpose and considerable
>
> effort that has gone into gaining global consensus for prop-055 in the
>
> first place.
>
>
>
> This policy proposal seeks to address that problem.
>
>
>
>
>
> 3. Situation in other RIRs
>
> ---------------------------
>
>
>
> As far as is known, there is no similar policy either being proposed
>
> or implemented at any of the other RIRs but we would like to recommend
>
> that they consider analogous proposals.
>
>
>
> This policy proposal applies to the APNIC service region only. It is
>
> highly likely that similar policy proposals will be made in other RIR
>
> regions also.
>
>
>
> It should be noted that at the recent LACNIC XI meeting, consensus was
>
> reached on the following policy proposal:
>
>
>
> LAC-2008-04: Special IPv4 Allocations/Assignments Reserved for
>
> New
>
> Members
>
> www.lacnic.net/documentos/politicas/LAC-2008-04-propuesta-en.pdf
>
>
>
> Under the LACNIC proposal, when there is no more IPv4 address space in
>
> the IANA free pool, LACNIC will reserve a /12 out of their remaining
>
> pool. From this /12, LACNIC will allocate /22s to new LIRs and assign
>
> /24s to critical infrastructure.
>
>
>
>
>
> 4. Details of the proposal
>
> ---------------------------
>
>
>
> This proposal describing the distribution of the final /8 has three
>
> parts:
>
>
>
>
>
> 4.1 New LIRs
>
>
>
> It is proposed that each new LIR receive IPv4 addresses which
>
> they
>
> can use for supporting legacy IPv4 services to ensure their full
>
> presence on the IPv4 Internet during the transition phase to
>
> IPv6:
>
>
>
> - Each new LIR may receive exactly one /22 (1024 routable IPv4
>
> addresses), APNIC's current minimum allocation size. If
>
> APNIC's current minimum allocation were to reduce in size in
>
> future, the allocation made under this policy should also be
>
> reduced to match.
>
>
>
> - Each new LIR may receive the specified allocation size
>
> regardless of LIR size or intended membership tier.
>
>
>
> - New LIRs may apply for and receive this allocation once they
>
> meet the criteria to receive IPv4 address space according to
>
> APNIC's allocation policy in force at the time (currently
>
> documented in [APNIC-86]).
>
>
>
> A new LIR in this proposal is defined as being an organisation
>
> which has recently become a full member of APNIC or a full member
>
> of one of APNIC's NIRs but has yet to be assigned or allocated
>
> any
>
> IPv4 address space.
>
>
>
> Membership of APNIC as an LIR is determined by APNIC's membership
>
> criteria at the time of application. Membership of an APNIC NIR
>
> is determined by each individual NIR's membership criteria at the
>
> time of application.
>
>
>
>
>
> 4.2 Existing LIRs
>
>
>
> It is proposed that each existing LIR may request and receive
>
> only
>
> a single allocation from the remaining /8:
>
>
>
> - Each existing LIR may receive exactly one /22, APNIC's
>
> current minimum allocation. If APNIC's current minimum
>
> allocation were to reduce in size in future, the allocation
>
> made under this policy should also be reduced to match.
>
>
>
> - Each existing LIR may receive the specified allocation size
>
> regardless of size or intended membership tier
>
>
>
> - Each existing LIR may apply for and receive this allocation
>
> once they meet the criteria to receive IPv4 address space
>
> according to APNIC's current allocation policy in force at
>
> the time (currently documented in [APNIC-86]).
>
>
>
> This ensures that each existing LIR receives 1024 routable IPv4
>
> addresses which they can use for supporting legacy IPv4 services
>
> during the transition phase to IPv6.
>
>
>
> An existing LIR in this proposal is defined as being an
>
> organisation which is a full member of APNIC or a full member of
>
> one of APNIC's NIRs and has already been assigned or allocated
>
> IPv4 address space.
>
>
>
> Membership of APNIC as an LIR is determined by APNIC's membership
>
> criteria at the time of application. Membership of an APNIC NIR
>
> is determined by each individual NIR's membership criteria at the
>
> time of application.
>
>
>
> 4.3 Unforeseen circumstances
>
>
>
> It is proposed that:
>
>
>
> - A /16 is held in reserve for some future uses, as yet
>
> unforeseen.
>
>
>
> The Internet is a disruptive technology and we cannot predict
>
> what might happen. Therefore it is prudent to keep a /16 in
>
> reserve, just in case some future requirement makes a demand of
>
> it.
>
>
>
> - In the event that this /16 remains unused in the time the
>
> remaining /8 covered by this policy proposal has been allocated
>
> to LIRs, it returns to the pool to be distributed as per
>
> clauses
>
> 4.1 and 4.2.
>
>
>
>
>
> 5. Advantages and disadvantages of the proposal
>
> ------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> 5.1 Advantages
>
>
>
> - APNIC's final /8 will have a special policy applicable to it.
>
>
>
> This avoids the risk of one or a few organisations consuming
>
> the
>
> entire block with a well crafted and fully justified resource
>
> application.
>
>
>
> - The proposal ultimately allows for 16384 LIRs (both new and
>
> existing) to receive exactly one /22 each.
>
>
>
> This is substantially larger than the existing APNIC
>
> membership,
>
> and attempts to ensure that no organisation lacks real routable
>
> IPv4 address space during the coming transition to IPv6.
>
>
>
>
>
> 5.2 Disadvantages
>
>
>
> - Some organisations may believe and can demonstrate that their
>
> IPv4 requirements are larger than a /22.
>
>
>
> But this final /8 is not intended as a solution to the growth
>
> needs of a few organisations, but for assisting with the
>
> transition from IPv4 to IPv6.
>
>
>
> - Some organisations may set up multiple LIR registrations in an
>
> effort to get more address space than proposed.
>
>
>
> APNIC must be vigilant regarding these, but the authors accept
>
> that it is hard to ensure complete compliance. With 16384
>
> possible allocations being proposed, this is not envisaged to
>
> be
>
> a major problem.
>
>
>
>
>
> 6. Effect on APNIC members
>
> ---------------------------
>
>
>
> This proposal allows APNIC LIRs (existing and new) to receive address
>
> space from the final /8 allocated to APNIC under prop-055.
>
>
>
>
>
> 7. Effect on NIRs
>
> ------------------
>
>
>
> This proposal has no direct impact on the operation of the NIRs, but
>
> as noted in the text above, has direct impact on the ability of NIR
>
> members (existing and new) to receive address space from the final /8
>
> allocated to APNIC under prop-055.
>
>
>
> 8. References
>
> --------------
>
>
>
> [1] prop-055: Global policy for the allocation of the remaining IPv4
>
> address space
>
> http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-055-v001.html
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Sig-policy-chair mailing list
>
> Sig-policy-chair@apnic.net
>
> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy-chair
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
> _______________________________________________
> sig-policy mailing list
> sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
