sig-policy April 2007

sig-policy@lists.apnic.net

3 participants
4 discussions

prop-037: Deprecation of email updates for APNIC Registry and whois data
by Toshiyuki Hosaka 20 Sep '07

20 Sep '07

Dear Colleagues, ------------------------------------------------------------------------ prop-037: Deprecation of email updates for APNIC Registry and whois data ------------------------------------------------------------------------ This proposal was presented at the APNIC 23 Policy SIG but failed to reach consensus as opinion was divided on the issue. Therefore, we are returning the proposal to the Resource management system working group mailing list for further discussion. Those who wish to discuss on this topic please subscribe and discuss it in the WG mailing list. To participate in this discussion, please join the wg-rms mailing list. Details at: http://www.apnic.net/community/lists/index.html The Resource management system working group's charter can be found at: http://www.apnic.net/docs/policy/wgs/index.html regards, Toshi -- Toshiyuki Hosaka

4 6

prop-048: IPv6 ULA-central
by Toshiyuki Hosaka 23 Apr '07

23 Apr '07

Dear SIG members The proposal "IPv6 ULA-central" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review. It will be presented at the Policy SIG at APNIC 24 in New Delhi, India, 29 August - 7 September 2007. You are invited to review and comment on the proposal on the mailing list before the meeting. The proposal's history can be found at: http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-048-v001.html Regards, Toshiyuki Hosaka ________________________________________________________________________ prop-048-v001: IPv6 ULA-central ________________________________________________________________________ Author: Jordi Palet Martinez, Consulintel <jordi.palet(a)consulintel.es> Version: 1 Date: 14 April 2007 Introduction ------------ This policy is intended to allow the assignment of IPv6 blocks within the so-called "Centrally Assigned Unique Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses" (see http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ipv6-ula-central-01) to organizations or individuals requiring it. These addresses are globally unique and intended for local communications, usually within a site or set of them and are not expected to be routable on the global Internet. Prefix FC00::/7 is already reserved by IANA for ULA (bit 8 determines if locally or centrally assigned, so ULA or ULA-central). Summary of current problem -------------------------- In some situations, especially large sites in organizations, which already may have Global Unicast IPv6 blocks, may require an additional block for their internal infrastructure. This additional block can be used for a number of purposes, such as VPNs, site-to-site communications, avoiding dual/multiple faced DNSs, support for applications which are sensitive to long convergence times (such as VoIP), etc. Situation in other RIRs ----------------------- This policy proposal has already been submitted to the other regions. Some of them have not yet published it at the time of submission to APNIC. Proposal details ---------------- Definition of ULA-central ULA-central refers to the Centrally Assigned Unique Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses as described in the IETF document "ietf-ipv6-ula-central" (whatever version is the most recent, as an Internet Draft, RFC or STD). The ULA-central block is within the prefix FC00::/7, with bit 8 set to 0. Assignment of ULA-central blocks Any organization or individual requiring a /48 from the ULA-central block will be able to get it assigned, once the relevant contract is executed and related membership fees are paid (to be determined by the board). Note that in most of the cases, locally assigned ULA addresses (RFC 4193) are preferred, and it is only expected that large managed sites will prefer central assignments. It is also important to reinforce that the ULA prefix (FC00::/7) it is not routable in the global Internet (i.e., not designed to be used as IPv6 portable assignments) and consequently must be filtered. Advantages and disadvantages of adopting the proposed policy ------------------------------------------------------------ a. Advantages In some situations, especially large sites in organizations, which already may have Global Unicast IPv6 blocks, may require an additional block for their internal infrastructure. This additional block can be used for a number of purposes, such as VPNs, site-to-site communications, avoiding dual/multiple faced DNSs, support for applications which are sensitive to long convergence times (such as VoIP), etc. The "Micro-allocations for Internal Infrastructure" document from ARIN (policy proposal 2006-2, authored by Jason Schiller et al., available at http://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2006_2.html), describes the need of this kind of additional block for purposes BGP Re-Convergence, Internal Infrastructure Security and why locally assigned ULAs (RFC 4193) addresses are not appropriate. Such policy proposal was accepted through the policy development process and it is already part of the ARIN Number Resource Policy Manual. The usage of Global Unicast IPv6 blocks for this type of purposes must be considered as wasteful, especially when there is already an IANA reserved prefix (FC00::/7) for doing so. b. Disadvantages None foreseen. However, it should be clear that the original scope of ULA-central is for large managed sites and all other cases should use locally assigned ULAs as per RFC 4193. From the same document, it is clearly documented the reasons why this prefix will not be useful as IPv6 portable assignments and will be filtered out in the global Internet. Effect on APNIC members ----------------------- None expected. Effect on NIRs -------------- They may need to adopt an equivalent proposal, or, as the number of assignations will be low, rely directly on the same system which may become implemented by APNIC. Acknowledgments --------------- I would like to acknowledge to the authors of the ULA-central work at IETF, Bob Hinden and Brian Haberman and all those who also contributed to that work. (end of text)

2 1

Discussions on IPv4 exhaustion at upcoming ARIN XIX meeting
by Dong Yan 16 Apr '07

16 Apr '07

Dear Sig members As you may be aware, the "prop-046: IPv4 countdown policy proposal" has been submitted to the ARIN community for discussion at the upcoming ARIN meeting in Puerto Rico. This is an update to say that the proposal will be discussed on Tuesday, 24 April 2007. You can find the day's agenda at: http://www.arin.net/ARIN-XIX/tuesday.html Also, issues related to the exhaustion of the free IPv4 address pool will also be discussed in a couple of panels at the meeting. In particular, the following sessions may be of interest: - Legacy address panel Monday, 23 April 2007 http://www.arin.net/ARIN-XIX/legacy_panel.html - IPv4 discussion panel Tuesday, 24 April 2007 http://www.arin.net/ARIN-XIX/ipv4_panel.html If you are interested in viewing the webcast of any of these sessions, see: http://www.arin.net/ARIN-XIX/webcast.html Since the proposal was submitted to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List, there has been a lot of discussion about the issues the proposal raised. Jim Weyand recently summarised the alternative policy options that have been discussed on the list. In trying to move forward discussions on IPv4 exhaustion in the APNIC region, I encourage you to take a minute to read his short summary at: http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/ppml/2007-March/006469.html What do you think of the ideas raised? Do you support any of the ideas raised? You can track the progress of the proposal in the ARIN region at: 2007-12 IPv4 Countdown Policy Proposal http://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2007_12.html Best regards, Dong Yan

1 0

Discussion on prop-046: IPv4 countdown policy proposal
by Toshiyuki Hosaka 13 Apr '07

13 Apr '07

Dear Colleagues, As you may be aware, "prop-046: IPv4 countdown policy proposal" has been submitted to the ARIN community for discussion at the upcoming ARIN meeting in Puerto Rico. Since the proposal was submitted to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List, there has been a lot of discussion about the issues the proposal raised. Jim Weyand recently summarised the alternative policy options that have been discussed on the list. In trying to move forward discussions on IPv4 exhaustion in the APNIC region, I encourage you to take a minute to read his short summary at: http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/ppml/2007-March/006469.html What do you think of the ideas raised? Do you support any of the ideas raised? At APNIC 23, there was general support for three of the principles contained in prop-046: - Global synchronization - Keeping current practices until the last moment - Recovery of unused address space should be discussed separately In light of the additional possibilities raised in the ARIN region, does this change or reinforce how you would like IPv4 exhaustion handled in the APNIC region? You can track the progress of the proposal in the ARIN region at: 2007-12 IPv4 Countdown Policy Proposal http://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2007_12.html By the way I am one of the co-authors of this proposal but I am writing to you to fascilitate the discussion as a policy-sig chair. Please keep track on this policy proposal. best regards, Toshi -- Toshiyuki Hosaka JPNIC

1 0

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

sig-policy April 2007