sig-policy September 2007

sig-policy@lists.apnic.net

20 participants
10 discussions

prop-046: IPv4 countdown policy proposal - returning to mailing list for development
by Randy Bush 08 Oct '07

08 Oct '07

----------------------------------------------------------------------- prop-046: IPv4 countdown policy proposal ----------------------------------------------------------------------- This proposal was presented at the APNIC 24 Policy SIG but failed to reach formal consensus. Instead, it was decided to return the proposal to the mailing list for further development by the community. Proposal details ---------------- The proposal contains four main principles: 1. IANA to distribute a single /8 to each RIR when the IANA free pool hits 5 /8s. This date is defined as 'IANA Exhaustion Date'. 2. Each RIR community can define its own regional policy on how to distribute the remaining RIR free pool to LIRs after the IANA Exhaustion Date. 3. RIRs should provide an official projection on the IANA Exhaustion Date to the community. 4. RIRs should maintain the current address distribution criteria until the IANA Exhaustion Date. Discussion at APNIC 24 ---------------------- Because this proposal is similar to "prop-051: Global policy for the allocation of the remaining IPv4 address space", both proposals were discussed at the same time. Following the discussion, there was consensus on the following principles: - If there is to be a policy on the distribution of the last remaining IPv4 blocks to RIRs, then each RIR should be allocated one, not two, /8 blocks. - Discussion is needed on the policy under which the last /8 would be allocated in the APNIC region. Next steps ---------- We would like to hear your opinions on this proposal. Here are some questions that may help start discussion: - Is this proposal addressing a real need or problem? - What advantages are there to distributing the last remaining /8 blocks equally to the RIRs? - Are distribution policy changes needed for the final /8 delegated to APNIC by IANA? If yes, what changes do you think are needed? For more information on the policy proposal, see: http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-046-v002.html Toshi, Jian, and randy

15 31

Re: [sig-policy] prop-046: IPv4 countdown policy proposal - returning to mailing list for development
by Raul Echeberria 02 Oct '07

02 Oct '07

Ray: a couple of comments: 1) A global policy can change what is stated in a former one. 2) I assume that no RIR will request more than 2 /8s. If somebody think/feel that our agreement on this point is not firm, so it will be necessary to propose a modification in the current global policy to limit the number of /8s requested to 2. Raúl At 09:45 a.m. 27/09/2007, Ray Plzak wrote: >Comment on drc comment 1 - There is nothing to >preclude an RIR from requesting to get what it >can justify, albeit that the RIRs have >informally said that they will only accept a max >of 2 /8s. Thus the following scenario is highly possible: > >IANA has 6 /8s remaining; RIR qualifies for 4 >/8s and decides to accept what it qualifies for; >what does IANA do with the remaining 2 /8s. > >Ray > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: sig-policy-bounces(a)lists.apnic.net [mailto:sig-policy- > > bounces(a)lists.apnic.net] On Behalf Of Izumi Okutani > > Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2007 8:30 AM > > To: David Conrad > > Cc: Randy Bush; sig-policy(a)lists.apnic.net > > Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-046: IPv4 countdown policy proposal - > > returning to mailing list for development > > > > Hi, I've commented inline. > > > > David Conrad wrote: > > [...] > > > > >> 1. IANA to distribute a single /8 to each RIR when the IANA free > > >> pool hits 5 /8s. This date is defined as 'IANA Exhaustion Date'. > > > > > > Seems fine, although just to be explicit: > > > > > > Suppose there are 6 /8s remaining in the free pool. An RIR comes to > > > IANA and indicates they want another allocation. Current practice is > > > to allocate 2 /8s (if justified). IANA allocates the 2 /8s, leaving > > > 4 /8s. The obvious approach would be to allocate the remaining 4 /8s > > > to the other 4 RIRs. Is that the intent? > > right, thanks for clarifying. > > > > ... and a single /8 will be distributed to *5* RIRs if the RIR > > requested > > for 1 /8 instead of 2 /8s. > > > > (i.e.the requesting RIR gets 2 /8s in total, remaining four RIRs get 1) > > > > [...] > > > > >> 3. RIRs should provide an official projection on the IANA Exhaustion > > >> Date to the community. > > > > > > I'm not sure I see the point of having 5 different 'official' > > > projections. > > Not for job security for researchers though I did like the idea :-). > > > > We weren't actually expecting each RIR to come with their own > > projections, but for them to provide latest information based on > > projections already available. > > > > (which RIRs consider as reliable) > > > > >> 4. RIRs should maintain the current address distribution criteria > > >> until > > >> the IANA Exhaustion Date. > > > > > > Perhaps not too surprisingly, I disagree with this particular > > > clause. By analogy, we're driving down a road at 100 KPH and we see > > > a brick wall ahead of us. This clause requires us to put the car on > > > cruise control and close our eyes until we're about a meter from the > > > wall. > > > > > > What is the rationale for this clause? > > The idea is to ensure LIRs can receive IPv4 address space they need > > (based on justifications) until the last minute with minimum confusion. > > > > Going by road analogy, you increase confusion for drivers if you > > add extra rules changing from time to time, which may lead to > > accidents/traffic jam. Our intention is to avoid confusion by > > maintaining a consistent rule. > > > > > I would think a more rational approach would be for each RIR to > > > encourage IPv4 conservation using whatever policies make sense in > > > their region. > > That could be one approach, and this is the part we intend to discuss > > as > > regional policies after IED (presented as informational in APNIC24). > > > > >> - Is this proposal addressing a real need or problem? > > > > > > It isn't clear to me what problem this policy is attempting to > > address. > > When the remaining IANA pool is 5 /8s (or less), there are not enough > > blocks for all RIRs on consumption basis. > > > > You can't tell if your turn to request will come before the IANA pool > > runs out as it all depends on timing of your + other RIRs' request. > > > > This makes it more difficult for RIRs to plan distribution of the > > available pool in their regions. > > > > >> - What advantages are there to distributing the last remaining > > >> /8 blocks equally to the RIRs? > > > > > > Encouraging investment in developing countries by large ISPs in > > > developed countries? > > :-) I understand your point, but I imagine a single /8 won't attract > > too > > many investors. It probably won't last for more than few months to meet > > their needs. > > > > I know quite a number of people are concerned about this point, so I'd > > be interested to hear more details on what people see as an issue. > > > > > > izumi > > * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy > > * > > _______________________________________________ > > sig-policy mailing list > > sig-policy(a)lists.apnic.net > > http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy > >* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on >resource management policy * >_______________________________________________ >sig-policy mailing list >sig-policy(a)lists.apnic.net >http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy

2 1

Monthly List Reminder
by noreply＠apnic.net 30 Sep '07

30 Sep '07

Dear Subscriber, This is the monthly reminder of subscription information for the sig-policy list, hosted at APNIC. For subscription information including how to un-subscribe go to http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy Thank you for participating in this discussion. Kind Regards, List administrator

1 0

Re: [sig-policy] prop-046: IPv4 countdown policy proposal - returning to mailing list for development
by Tim Jones 27 Sep '07

27 Sep '07

OK. So "MULTI-NATIONAL ISP" sets up offshore, and that fulfills their IPv4 needs for a couple of months, and then what? I think a lot of people/RIRs/proposals/member's money are trying to work out how to provide a "soft landing" for the end of IPv4. Let's face it, there is an infinite need of a finite resource, this is not going to change no matter how much we fiddle with the edges. There will be no soft landing. Maybe all this debating of proposals will provide a tiny bit of extra time for a few companies/regions, but not much. This question may touch a bit close to home for some researchers on this list who spend their time travelling from conference to conference, but I often wonder why an elegant protocol transition solution which is a "no brainer" for service providers (the coal face of the IP industry) to implement hasn't been thought up a lot earlier than now. IPv4->IPv6 is NOT a "no brainer". If it were we would not be having this discussion. Real world: I asked one of Australasia's largest IP transit providers yesterday their plans for IPv6. The answer? "There is no requirement from business areas for IPv6." Double NAT here we come. Will we ever emerge? Tim. ----- Original Message ---- From: Philip Smith <pfs(a)cisco.com> To: Sebastian Bellagamba <sbellagamba(a)ssatelital.com.ar> Cc: sig-policy(a)lists.apnic.net Sent: Thursday, 27 September, 2007 11:44:55 PM Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-046: IPv4 countdown policy proposal - returning to mailing list for development Sebastian Bellagamba said the following on 27/9/07 23:32: > I am not sure if I follow well the idea of potential RIR shopping. Let's > say we have GLOBALISP Inc, based in some (North) American big city, with > a huge operation in the US and Europe; GLOBALISP also have a really > small operation in, for example, Argentina. Do you really think that > GLOBALISP Argentina could justify a request for a /8? If they do, how do > you imagine that RIR staff would handle that justification and approve > the subsequent allocation? GLOBALISP could put their next global request in through their Argentinian office. What is stopping them doing this at the moment? Does LACNIC have a policy which says that LIRs who are members of other RIRs cannot get address space apart from what is going to be used in the country of operation? It's very possible. Let's not pretend it can't or won't happen. ;-) philip -- > > Best > > SB > > > > On Sep 27, 2007, at 10:14 AM, Philip Smith wrote: > >> Just to add my contribution... >> >> Izumi Okutani said the following on 27/9/07 22:30: >>>> >>>> Encouraging investment in developing countries by large ISPs in >>>> developed countries? >>> :-) I understand your point, but I imagine a single /8 won't attract too >>> many investors. It probably won't last for more than few months to meet >>> their needs. >> >> Well, the investors I can think of are those who will set up business >> (probably no more than a shell) in another RIR region just so they can >> get IPv4 address space for their business in the region which has no >> more IPv4 address space. Multinationals tend to have one RIR membership >> but network needs covering multiple RIR regions. So this isn't unusual. >> >>> I know quite a number of people are concerned about this point, so I'd >>> be interested to hear more details on what people see as an issue. >> >> I think a good start would be that each RIR region should document what >> should happen to the last /8. Then the process can be a "if you give us >> a /8 we have a policy which describes what we are going to do with it". >> It sounds a lot more realistic than the current "give us a /8 and we >> promise we'll use it for special needs only". We have not defined the >> latter in policy anywhere. And if no policy has been defined for this >> /8, the fall-back position would be the existing policies, which could >> easily see one LIR come and gobble up the whole lot in one swoop. >> Meaning we have spent all this effort for nothing. >> >> philip >> -- >> * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy >> * >> _______________________________________________ >> sig-policy mailing list >> sig-policy(a)lists.apnic.net <mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> >> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy > * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy(a)lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy Sick of deleting your inbox? Yahoo!7 Mail has free unlimited storage. http://au.docs.yahoo.com/mail/unlimitedstorage.html

1 0

prop-049: IANA policy for allocation of ASN blocks to RIRs - final call for comments
by Randy Bush 26 Sep '07

26 Sep '07

----------------------------------------------------------------------- prop-049: IANA policy for allocation of ASN blocks to RIRs ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear colleagues This is the final call for comments on policy proposal "prop-049: IANA policy for allocation of ASN blocks to RIRs". This proposal was presented at APNIC 24 and was accepted by consensus. The proposal is now submitted to the Policy SIG mailing list for an eight-week discussion period. At the end of that period, if consensus appears to have been achieved, the Chair of the Policy SIG will ask the Executive Council to endorse the proposal for implementation. * Send all comments and questions to: <sig-policy(a)apnic.net> * Deadline for comments: 23 November 2007 Proposal details ---------------- This is a proposal to have a global policy for the Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) to receive blocks of Autonomous System Numbers (ASNs) from the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA). This codifies existing practice and the IANA was supportive of it. Proposal details including the full text of the proposal, presentations, links to relevant meeting minutes, and links to mailing list discussions are available at: http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-049-v001.html Toshi, Jian, and randy

1 0

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

FW: prop-051: Global policy for the allocation of the remaining IPv4 address space
by Sam Dickinson 13 Sep '07

13 Sep '07

I am forwarding this message on behalf of Roque Gagliano. Regards Sam Dickinson, APNIC Policy Officer Begin forwarded message: From: Roque Gagliano <rgaglian(a)antel.net.uy> Date: September 1, 2007 3:35:52 PM GMT-03:00 To: sig-policy(a)apnic.net Subject: prop-051: Global policy for the allocation of the remaining IPv4 address space Dear all, We think that proposals prop-046 and prop-051 are very simiilar in the sense that both of them consider that there should be some new global policies for establishing a different critera for the allocation of the last /8s from IANA to the RIRs. We, the proponents of prop-051 think that the most interesting would be to discuss if this kind of policies are necessaries or not. We, of course, think they are. Considering the discussion that took place at this mailing list and the many emails supporting a smaller value for the final allocation to each RIR, we are introducing a change to our proposal, setting the new value for N as 2 (10 /8 in total at the end of the IPv4 unallocated pool). The rationale for the new value is: 1) Today IANA allocates 2 x /8 as a normal allocation to every RIR as that is what they are asking as a gentlemen agreement, so the last allocation will have the same size as the actual allocations. 2) With 2x/8 the RIR will have an allocation size big enough to implement more conservative policies such as slow landing. 3) With N=2 we cannot say that we are boosting RIR shopping. It is not a big enough pool. Best Regards, Roque, Francisco, Hytham and Didier. ------------------------------------------------------------- Roque Gagliano ANTEL - URUGUAY rgaglian(a)antel.net.uy

6 9

The summary report of the Policy SIG at APNIC 24
by Toshiyuki Hosaka 11 Sep '07

11 Sep '07

Dear SIG members, Here's the summary report of the last Policy SIG held during APNIC 24 last week. Community Resolution: At the beginning of the Policy SIG the following resolution passed unanimously. http://www.apnic.net/meetings/24/program/sigs/policy/resolution.html Co-chair Election: Randy Bush and Jian Zhang were elected as new co-chairs. Policy Proposals: The following proposal reached consensus: prop-049: IANA policy for allocation of ASN blocks to Regional Internet Registries There were two proposals that considered ways to distribute the last remaining blocks of the free IANA IPv4 address pool to the RIRs: prop-051: Global Policy for the Allocation of the Remaining IPv4 Address Space prop-046: IPv4 countdown policy proposal Neither proposal reached consensus; however, there was consensus on the following principles: - If there is to be a policy on the distribution of the last remaining IPv4 blocks to RIRs, then each RIR should be allocated one, not two, /8 blocks. - Discussion is needed on the policy under which the last /8 would be allocated in the APNIC region. The following proposal didn't reach consensus: prop-050: APNIC transfer policy for IPv4 address holders However many of the participants support to discuss further on this policy proposal. Author of this proposal will revise the proposal and come back to the next APNIC meeting with a proposal reflecting the revised input. Four open proposals were not presented at the meeting: prop-042: Proposal to change IPv6 initial allocation criteria prop-043: Proposal to remove reference to IPv6 policy document as an "interim" policy document prop-047: eGLOP multicast address assignments prop-048: IPv6 ULA-central For more information, please see: http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals All presentation material are available at: http://www.apnic.net/meetings/24/program/sigs/policy/ Best Regards, Toshiyuki Hosaka, Randy Bush, Jian Zhang Chair/Co-chair Policy SIG

1 0

About not presenting my proposals yesterday
by JORDI PALET MARTINEZ 07 Sep '07

07 Sep '07

Hi all, As several folks is asking me, just a short message to explain why I didn't presented my policy proposals yesterday. Those policy proposals where already presented in the previous meeting and they didn't reached consensus. They didn't had any further discussion in the mailing list and they haven't been updated. Consequently, according to the PDP, I don't think is fair to present them again and try to reach consensus. Also this way the other policy proposals, which are thing are very important, got more time for discussion. Regards, Jordi ********************************************** The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 ! http://www.ipv6day.org This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.

1 0

Proposed APNIC community resolution on current IPv4 and IPv6 issues
by Randy Bush 04 Sep '07

04 Sep '07

if it is not rude, i would like to propose that the proposal "Proposed APNIC community resolution on current IPv4 and IPv6 issues" be moved to early in the agenda. i believe it sets the tone for the discussions for the run-out of the iana ipv4 free pool, and that the discussion to reach consensus on it will act as a good framing for much of the rest of the policy discussions. and i would be happy to formally propose or sponsor it or whatever. randy

2 1

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

sig-policy September 2007