sig-policy December 2005

sig-policy@lists.apnic.net

10 participants
8 discussions

Update on prop-032-v001: 4-byte AS number policy proposal
by Geoff Huston 28 Dec '05

28 Dec '05

Hi, This policy proposal was submitted to all five RIRs in early December. In the intervening period the discussion on the ARIN policy discussion mailing list has undoubtedly been the most active of all the regions. For those who do not follow the ARIN list, the points arising from that discussion as they relate to changes in the text of the policy so far appear to be: a) that the section on terminology should use a period as a separator between the high and low 16 bit fields rather than a colon as originally proposed, in order to reduce confusion with delimiters in BGP communities b) that the proposal replace the term "2 byte" with "16 bit" and "4 byte" with "32 bit" due to the somewhat imprecise nature of the definition of a "byte" Other topics of discussion on the ARIN list have been - whether the terminology and nomenclature sessions should be included in the policy proposal - whether the specification of dates are reasonable in this context - whether the policy alters the current sequential number allocation registry practice - the criteria (if any) that should be applied to a request for an AS number of the "other" type - the desireable size of the private use AS number pool No further changes to the policy are proposed at this point in time as a clear outcome of these discussions, as the discussion has raised points in favour and against making further changes to the policy proposal. Its also worth noting that this is intended to be a temporary policy associated with transition to the larger number pool, and at the end of the period, proposed to be 1 January 2010, this policy is no longer in force, and the larger 32-bit AS number space will be managed as a single pool using the current policies and procedures. regards, Geoff

1 0

prop-032-v001: 4-byte AS number policy proposal
by Kenny Huang 15 Dec '05

15 Dec '05

Dear SIG members, The following "4-byte AS number policy proposal" was received. Please feel free to review and comment on the proposal. Please also sumit your proposal for APNIC21 meeting. Regards Kenny Huang Policy SIG huangk(a)alum.sinica.edu ________________________________________________________________________ prop-032-v001: 4-byte AS number policy proposal ________________________________________________________________________ Authors: Geoff Huston Version: 1 Date: 15 December 2005 SIG: Policy Introduction ------------- This policy proposal details a set of actions and associated dates for RIR AS number allocation policies to assist in an orderly transition to use of the 4-byte AS number space. Summary ------- This policy proposal details a set of actions and associated dates for RIR AS number allocation policies to assist in an orderly transition to use of the 4-byte AS number space. The essential attributes of this policy proposal are to facilitate the ease of transitional arrangements by equipment vendors, network managers and network operations staff, to provide the industry with some predictability in terms of dates and associated actions with respect to registry operational procedures for AS number allocations. Background ---------- Recent studies of AS number consumption rates indicate that the existing 2-byte pool of unallocated AS numbers will be exhausted sometime in the period between 2010 and 2016, absent of any concerted efforts of recovery of already-allocated AS numbers [1] [2]. Standardisation work in the IETF has produced a document that is currently being submitted as a Proposed Standard that will expand the AS number space to a 4-byte field [3]. It is noted that some advance period may be required by network operators to undertake the appropriate procedures relating to support of 4-byte AS numbers, and while no flag day is required in the transition to the longer AS number field, it is recognised that a prudent course of action is to allow for allocation of these extended AS numbers well in advance of an anticipated 2-byte AS number exhaustion date. Nomenclature ------------ It is proposed to identify 4-byte AS numbers using a syntax of <high order 16 bit value in decimal>.<low order 16 bit value in decimal>. Accordingly, a 4-byte AS number of value 65546 (decimal) would be identified as "1.10". Terminology ----------- 2-byte only AS numbers: AS numbers in the range 0 - 65535 4-byte only AS numbers: AS numbers in the range 1.0 - 65535.65535 (decimal range 65,536 - 4,294,967,295) 4-byte AS numbers: AS numbers in the range 0.0 - 65535.65535 (decimal range 0 4,294,967,295) Proposal -------- This policy proposal nominates 3 dates for changes to the current AS number allocation policy for the registry: 1. On 1 January 2007 the registry will process applications that specifically request 4-byte only AS Numbers and allocate such AS numbers as requested by the applicant. In the absence of any specific request for a 4-byte only AS number, a 2-byte only AS number will be allocated by the registry. 2. On 1 January 2009 the registry will process applications that specifically request 2-byte only AS numbers and allocate such AS numbers as requested by the applicant. In the absence of any specific request for a 2-byte only AS number, a 4-byte only AS number will be allocated by the registry. 3. On 1 January 2010 the registry will cease to make any distinction between 2-byte only AS numbers and 4-byte only AS numbers, and will operate AS number allocations from an undifferentiated 4-byte AS number allocation pool. No other changes in AS number allocation policy are implied by this proposal. Pros/cons --------- The policy provides a clear indication of dates at which time 4-byte AS numbers will be available for use, and a date by which the transition to use of a larger 4-byte AS number pool is anticipated to be completed. Effect on APNIC --------------- This policy proposal is intended to respond to the predicted exhaustion of 2-byte AS numbers by proposing an orderly and clearly predictable transition for APNIC members to the use of 4-byte AS numbers. References ---------- [1] Daily AS Number Report, http://www.potaroo.net/tools/asns [2] ASNs MIA: A Comparision of RIR Statistics and RIS Reality, http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0510/wilhelm.html [3] BGP Support for Four-octet AS Number Space, draft-ietf-idr- as4bytes-12.txt

1 0

Regarding the no consensus decision of PROP-028-v001
by MAEMURA Akinori 08 Dec '05

08 Dec '05

Dear all, During its telephone conference meeting of 25 November 2005, and APNIC EC discussed the current situation regarding proposal "prop-028-v001", calling for the abolition of per- address fees for NIRs. The EC recognised that under the APNIC policy development process there is no requirement for this matter to be discussed by the EC, because the SIG chair has reached a judgement of "no consensus" on this matter The EC however discussed the matter, and it saw no reason to question the judgement of the SIG chair regarding consensus within the NIR SIG. It must be concluded therefore that the decision of the SIG chair stands, and that further discussion of the proposal will continue on the sig-nir mailing list toward the consensus in the next APNIC21. Regards, MAEMURA Akinori Chair, APNIC Executive Council

8 20

RE: [sig-nir] RE: [sig-policy] Regarding the no consensus decisionofPROP-028-v001
by Tim Jones 06 Dec '05

06 Dec '05

> As I promised, it my summary of what went wrong. The only thing that went wrong is that you didn't get the outcome you wanted. The policy development process was followed precisely. > (How > can four objections out of 1,000 members be substantial?) There were only four supporters according to your figures. If 900+ LIRs supported abolishing fees for themselves, would the objections of a few NIRs be substantial? I think your view would possibly change in those circumstances. > The decision of chair contain technical error. Like I mentioned earlier, > the > chair only observed public comment period and concluded that "There is no > clear general consensus for the proposal." The chair totally ignored > previous consensus among NIR SIG and the meeting result of AMM. If the > chair > is to make the final call, she should have taken whole process into > consideration as well as public comment period. She didn't, and the result > was totally opposite. The chair followed the documented policy development process. If you don't believe so, please post the exact part of the policy development process that you believe was not followed correctly. > Third, the fiat from EC chair. > If some people raised objections against SIG chair's decision, EC should > have investigated if the SIG chair's decision was reasonable and if the > objection was valid. However, the EC chair sent a fiat when the proposal > was > not even EC's table. He simply cut in and stopped discussion.(I looked EC > chair's role from APNIC document, and I could not find any document that > says EC chair can cut in, stop discussion and act as a judge.) Once again, the SIG chair made the only decision that she could possibly make based on the current process. The EC chair sent an email explaining this to you. Your argument is against the current policy development process (which I personally believe works well). If you don't like it, propose a change. Regards, Tim.

3 2

RE: [sig-nir] RE: [sig-policy] Regarding the no consensus decisionofPROP-028-v001
by Tim Jones 06 Dec '05

06 Dec '05

> I know the SIG chair followed our PDP. I don't think you do. If you did then this thread would have stopped a long time ago. As myself, Save and others have said previously, the policy development process could not be any clearer: If there are substantial objections at ANY point in the policy development process, then consensus CANNOT be confirmed. It does not matter whether consensus has been reached at the NIR SIG and AMM. Why? I hear you ask, and the answer is simple. The vast majority of members are neither on the NIR SIG mailing list, nor are they able to attend the AMM. This is why the comment period on the SIG policy mailing list is so important. Please Google "define:consensus" to answer your other points. Myself and others have said it before but I'll say it again. If you don't agree with the process, then propose a change. Regards, Tim. > All I am point out is that there were many options that the chair could > take. > ie) > 1. NIR SIG consensus + AMM consensus + public comment(4:4:1) > is a consensus > 2. during public comment period 4:4:1 is a tie (I can not decide. Please > EC > decide) > 3. no consensus > 4. We need more time to decide since we have split opinion among > members > 5. etc. > > Why number 3 when the figure is 4:4:1? > (I could not see any rational, logical/reasonable reasoning) > > This is good place to discuss. > > The rest, I know we all followed our PDP. > > Regards, > > Chanki

1 0

RE: [sig-nir] RE: [sig-policy] Regarding the no consensus decision ofPROP-028-v001
by Chanki Park 06 Dec '05

06 Dec '05

> Conclusion > Our PDP is not weak enough to alter the final result by a few people. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ It should be: Our PDP is weak enough to alter the final result by a few people. sorry... Chanki

1 0

APNIC 21 Call forproposals
by Kenny Huang 05 Dec '05

05 Dec '05

Dear SIG members, [Apologies for duplicate posts] _____________________________ APNIC 21 - Call for proposals _____________________________ 21st APNIC Open Policy Meeting 27 February - 3 March 2006 Perth, Australia Dear Colleagues, The next Policy Special Interest Group (SIG) meeting will be held in Perth, Australia during APNIC's 21st Open Policy Meeting. This SIG is an open forum to discuss and develop policies and procedures which relate to the management and use of Internet address resources by APNIC, NIRs, and ISPs within the Asia Pacific region. The SIG is currently planned to have two 90 minute sessions on Thursday 2nd March, from 9am to 12:30pm. This email is a request for contributions. Proposals are welcome from anyone interested in the management of Internet resources in the Asia Pacific region. If you would like to take part in this SIG, you have two options. Policy Proposal Presentation: please submit the proposal by Monday 30 January 2006, using the online form at: http://www.apnic.net/cgi-bin/policy_proposal.pl Alternatively, you can send your proposal in TEXT format to the Policy SIG chairs, CCing <sig(a)apnic.net>. Proposals will be forwarded to the Policy SIG mailing list by the Secretariat. Informational Presentation: If you want to submit an Informational presentation, please notify the Policy SIG chairs directly at any time, but preferably by Monday 30 January 2006, to confirm a speaking slot. SIG presentation types ---------------------- a) Policy proposal (P) - a proposal which requires feedback and community consensus before it can proceed. b) Informational (I) - typically a status report delivered to convey information to the audience. Please mark your submission as either "I" or "P". The requirements below apply only to policy proposals (P). Policy proposal (P) requirements -------------------------------- Submissions should be: - in TEXT format - received no later than 30 January 2006 - relevant to the SIG A simple form has been created to assist with submitting policy proposals (P). This can be found at: http://www.apnic.net/cgi-bin/policy_proposal.pl SIG archives and guidelines for presenters, including useful information, helpful hints, and sample presentation templates are available at: http://www.apnic.net/meetings/archive/sigs/ Agenda slots will be allocated on a first-come first-served basis, so a timely submission of your proposal and presentation abstract would be welcome and to your advantage. Look forward to seeing you in Perth! Regards, Kenny Huang, Toshiyuki Hosaka and Eugene Li

1 0

APNIC 21 Call forproposals
by Kenny Huang 05 Dec '05

05 Dec '05

Dear SIG Members: This is call for proposals and presentation announcement for APNIC 21 meeting. Policy SIG will be held on 2nd Mar 2006. Please see the detail information below: -------------------------------------------------------------------- IPv6 technical (Wednesday 1st Mar, 11:00-12:30) DNS Operations (Wednesday 1st Mar, 11:00-12:30) Routing (Wednesday 1st Mar, 14:00-15:30) (Wednesday 1st Mar, 16:00-17:30) Database (Wednesday 1st Mar, 16:00-17:30) Policy (Thursday 2nd Mar, 09:00-10:30) (Thursday 2nd Mar, 11:00-12:30) NIR (Thursday 2nd Mar, 14:00-17:30) (Thursday 2nd Mar, 16:00-17:30) IX (Thursday 2nd Mar, 14:00-15:30) (Thursday 2nd Mar, 16:00-17:30) Note that only Policy proposals must be submitted in text format 4 weeks before the Open Policy Meeting, by Monday 30 January 2006. Policy proposals schedule ------------------------- 02 December 2005 Call for proposals Secretariat to send to apnic-announce Chairs to send to SIG lists by 5 December 09 January 2006 Reminder of proposal deadline Secretariat to send to apnic-announce 30 January 2006 Proposal deadline and acceptance notification Chairs to send to SIG lists 27 February 2006 APNIC 21 commences ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Best Regards Kenny Huang, Policy SIG

1 0

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

sig-policy December 2005