sig-policy November 2011

sig-policy@lists.apnic.net

8 participants
9 discussions

Re: [sig-policy] Need to understand logic behind assigning /64 IPv6 addresses
by Mark Tinka 21 Sep '12

21 Sep '12

On Sunday, September 18, 2011 01:43:13 AM Owen DeLong wrote: > Multiple prefix sizes, address fragmentation, etc. > Admittedly, it's a small complication, but, it is a > complication. > Further, it violates the principle of least surprise as > your organization scales and brings in new engineers. A good v6 address assignment policy for one's infrastructure is neither difficult to create nor maintain. No issues here since we started running v6 over 6 years ago. We know how v6 can make address management within an ISP's network brain-dead to maintain, but it's not reason enough to use /64's where we can comfortably use /112's and still not overly complicate our lives. > So did I. I was being a little tongue in cheek/snarky > with just presenting the math on the number of > addresses,... I know what you were getting at, with multiple v6 addresses on a single interface, e.t.c. > but the reality is that there may be some > cases where having multiple addresses for one end of a > point to point or the other (or both) may prove useful. > These are admittedly rare. Agree, but having run multiple networks with v6 over the last several years, we're yet to find with a reason that has required us to have multiple addresses on point-to-point links either between infrastructure, or between AS domains. Some things really are that simple :-). Obviously, I can't speak for anyone else's network, just ours. Mark.

8 17

Re: [sig-policy] Article of possible interest to the community
by Mike Burns 11 Jan '12

11 Jan '12

Hi Owen, > That concept has been floated multiple times and is as ill-conceived now as ever. > Owen Times are changing. What was once conceived of as an orderly transition from IPv4 to IPv6 has bogged down and the current situation is one where APNIC has run out of available IPv4 addresses while the Internet is still 99.7% IPv4 traffic. Asian operators have little choice now but to enter the IPv4 transfer market. Since there is no existing policy mechanism for the transfer of ARIN addresses to APNIC, Asian operators will logically look for an alternate source. Legacy addresses which are not under any agreement with any RIR can be legally bought and sold. And there is no restriction on these addresses being routed from any region on the planet. If the RIRs fail to adopt policies which will facilitate interregional transfers, and there is no law precluding these transactions of legacy space, then these transactions will occur. The author of the article I sent points out that the current situation drives the need for a private registry for legacy addresses. If a private registry is anathema to you, please consider pushing policies in the ARIN region which would facilitate global transfers and reduce the need for a private registry. Because if the RIRs refuse to recognize rational business transactions, these transactions will be driven either to a private registry, or worse, driven "off the books" entirely. Regards, Mike Burns ----- Original Message ----- From: Owen DeLong To: Mike Burns Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2011 2:53 PM Subject: Re: [sig-policy] Article of possible interest to the community That concept has been floated multiple times and is as ill-conceived now as ever. Owen On Aug 18, 2011, at 8:00 AM, Mike Burns wrote: Hi Owen, I came across a response to Mr. Vixie's article and thought it might be of interest to the APNIC community, particularly as it mentions pending IPv4 legacy address sales to Asian customers. http://techliberation.com/2011/08/15/trading-ipv4-addresses-starts-making-i… The concept elucidated is a private registry for legacy addresses which would have no restrictions on interregional sales, thus allowing the legal transfer of legacy IPv4 address into Asia. Regards, Mike Burns ----- Original Message ----- From: Owen DeLong To: sig-policy(a)apnic.net SIG List Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2011 8:31 AM Subject: [sig-policy] Article of possible interest to the community I came across this ACM article and thought it might be of interest to the APNIC community as well... http://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=2008216 Owen -------------------------------------------------------------------------- * 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

10 24

Monthly List Reminder
by noreply＠apnic.net 30 Nov '11

30 Nov '11

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

APNIC Prop 99
by Owen DeLong 26 Nov '11

26 Nov '11

I haven't heard much on here about any of the proposals that were sent back to the list after the Busan meeting. I think the biggest objection to Prop 99 was the nibble boundary and the resulting fee jumps due to the quasi-linear nature of APNIC fees (a structure I suggest should be revisited, but, that's out of scope here). However, in the absence of a fee structure change, would Prop 99 be more feasible if we made the nibble boundary optional so that you have the option of getting your allocation rounded up to nibbles, but, you are not required to. (In other words, you can justify your complete allocation to APNIC and then request that they issue you whatever smaller block you like at the time.) If that would resolve the issues and bring the policy to consensus, I'm happy to submit such a change. Owen

1 1

Changes to APNIC IPv4 transfer policy
by Adam Gosling 21 Nov '11

21 Nov '11

________________________________________________________________________ Changes to APNIC IPv4 transfer policy ________________________________________________________________________ APNIC account holders wishing to be the recipient of IPv4 transfers must now justify their need for the resources as a result of a policy change taking effect from today, Monday, 21 November 2011. To streamline the process, those seeking to be the recipient of IPv4 transfers may apply for pre-approval by demonstrating their need before locating a source for the address space. http://www.apnic.net/pre-approval Updated policy documents ------------------------ This policy change is the implementation of prop-096: Maintaining demonstrated needs requirement in transfer policy after the final /8 phase You can view the history of this policy proposal at: http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-096 The revised APNIC transfer, merger, acquisition, and takeover policy is now open for final editorial comments. Please provide comments before 21 December 2011. You can access the editorial call for comment at the link below. http://www.apnic.net/community/policy/draft Regards -- Adam Gosling Senior Policy Specialist email: adam(a)apnic.net APNIC sip: adam(a)voip.apnic.net http://www.apnic.net phone: +61 7 3858 3100 ________________________________________________________________________ * Sent by email to save paper. Print only if necessary.

1 0

currently applicable policy for LIR address space management
by Chu, Yi [NTK] 16 Nov '11

16 Nov '11

Is there a change and/or update after APNIC received the final /8 from IANA, regarding how LIR should delegate IPv4 addresses to their downstream? ARIN changed the justification from 12-month to 3-month after the last /8. I see that APNIC changes the policy for initial delegation to LIR. (section 3, Policies for IPv4 address space management in the Asia Pacific region). But I do not see visible changes to how LIR should manage their v4 addresses. I want to understand it correctly to make sure I do not mis-read the currently enforced policy. Yi Chu Sprint Yi.chu(a)sprint.com ________________________________ This e-mail may contain Sprint Nextel proprietary information intended for the sole use of the recipient(s). Any use by others is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies of the message.

2 1

APNIC EC Endorses Policy Decision from APNIC 32
by Srinivas Chendi 07 Nov '11

07 Nov '11

________________________________________________________________________ APNIC EC Endorses Policy Decision from APNIC 32 ________________________________________________________________________ Dear Colleagues, A consensus policy decision from the APNIC 32 Policy SIG Meeting was endorsed by the Executive Council (EC) on Thursday, 3 November 2011. The EC endorsed the following policy proposal: prop-096 Maintaining demonstrated needs requirement in transfer policy after the final /8 phase This is the final stage in the Policy Development Process before implementation. The details of this policy proposal are available at: http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-096 Implementation Timeline ----------------------- As APNIC is already distributing addresses from the 'final /8', this proposal is scheduled for immediate implementation on Monday, 21 November 2011. Global Policy prop-069 ---------------------- At the request of the APNIC Policy SIG Chairs, the EC acknowledged that prop-069, "Global policy proposal for the allocation of IPv4 blocks to Regional Internet Registries" is superseded by prop-097, "Global Policy for post exhaustion IPv4 allocation mechanisms by the IANA". The EC passed a resolution that the proposal should be abandoned. The details of this policy proposal are available at: http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-069 Regards ________________________________________________________________________ APNIC Secretariat secretariat(a)apnic.net Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC) Tel: +61 7 3858 3100 PO Box 3646 South Brisbane, QLD 4101 Australia Fax: +61 7 3858 3199 6 Cordelia Street, South Brisbane, QLD http://www.apnic.net ________________________________________________________________________ * Sent by email to save paper. Print only if necessary.

1 0

FW: prop-100 Returned to mailing list
by RAKESH MOHAN AGARWAL 03 Nov '11

03 Nov '11

Dear Colleagues It has been some time since the last clarifications were posted to the mailing list. In the meantime more comments have been received. I have tried to address all these comments through a consolidated reply given below - Reply to Comments received in Prop-100 (Comments received during period 4/9/2011 to 31/10/2011) This reply is in response to the comments received from APNIC members upto 31/10/2011. The reply is being given in a consolidated form to cover the various comments received during the period. It is clarified once again that the underlying logic of the proposal is derived from the necessity to look at IPv6 address allocation in a new perspective as against the existing practice, which is an extension of IP address policies of the IPv4 era. IPv4 addresses were in shortage therefore, policies adopted for IPv4 were oriented more towards conservation and prolonging the life of the IPv4 address space. IPv6 addresses are in abundance and their usage has only begun recently. Compared to the role of IPv4 till date, IPv6 will play a much, larger and important role in the coming years because every device and service will use IP address in some form or the other. IPv6 will emerge as the most important standard of the century. The stakes are high for everyone and therefore, it is absolutely necessary to properly plan the usage of this address space. Therefore, IPv6 address polices should be more oriented towards planned usage on a long term basis for the numerous organizations in different economies. Prop-100 has been submitted with this view in mind. Some of the learned members have tried to examine the proposal critically from a technical perspective only but in this process they have missed out on the larger objective of the proposal – planned usage of the IPv6 address space with assurance that every economy will have some address space reserved for it whether it needs now or in the future. Regarding the comment that feedback of other RIRs/IANA should be taken as APNIC policy cannot be misaligned with other RIRs, it is clarified that there are global policies and regional policies. Regional policies can be different e.g. the policy of NIR. NIR polices are there only in the APNIC region. Similarly prop-100 has put forward a policy proposal for the APNIC region. It has been put forward as a regional policy proposal at this stage. Whether it is suitable for other RIRs, it is their call and they may debate it separately. If the community feels that it needs to be discussed in other RIRs also then it may be done. The proposal prop-100 is more of an administrative nature regarding organization of the IPv6 address space rather than a technical proposal. There is a distinction between reservation and allocation. What the proposal prop-100 has suggested is reservation of the address space. Therefore, the address space remains with APNIC unless it is allocated. Though prop-100 does not suggest reservation for a limited period but if an economy is unable to utilize the reserved address space within a given time frame say 10 years, APNIC may consider reservation/allocation of that address space to someone else to ensure that the address space is properly utilized and does not remain locked up indefinitely. There are queries regarding organizations seeking address space outside of the reserved national block. In prop-100 no restriction has been proposed. Therefore, organizations who have obtained address space from outside the reserved national block can use that address space within the country. Similarly if organizations have obtained address space from the reserved national block, they can use that address space outside the country depending upon the network requirements. If the country has an NIR, then the NIR’s operational policies would take these issues into consideration. Some of the members have also suggested that instead of putting forward the proposal prop-100 for all the economies in the APNIC region, India can take a lead and apply the proposal within the country for a period of 2 years. Based on the experience of India, then if required the proposal prop-100 can be further applied to other economies in the APNIC region. It was also suggested that India may approach APNIC directly to get a /16 IPv6 address block through an administrative process rather than through a policy process. In this regard, we are taking up the matter with APNIC separately. Further, for the benefit of the APNIC community members we would like to bring to their notice that the draft of the National Telecom Policy 2011 (NTP-2011) has been recently released by the Government of India for public comments, where IPv6 finds a very important place. The draft policy can be accessed at http://www.dot.gov.in/NTP-2011/NTP2011.htm Our country is giving lot of importance to IPv6 deployment and proposal prop-100 seeks to make this task simpler for the country by giving importance to forward planning of the Ipv6 address space. R.M.Agarwal, B.K.Nath India Dear Colleagues Thank you very much for taking interest in this proposal, Though we have tried to clarify the points raised during discussions and presentations and the theme behind this proposal however as a large number of members are not convinced. We will go thru various queries again and will clarify shortly. Regards R M Agarwal & B K Nath -----Original Message----- From: sig-policy-bounces(a)lists.apnic.net [mailto:sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net] On Behalf Of Andy Linton Sent: 06 September 2011 08:51 To: sig-policy(a)lists.apnic.net Subject: [sig-policy] prop-100 Returned to mailing list Dear colleagues prop-100 National IP Address Plan - Allocation of country-wide IP address blocks, did not reach consensus at the APNIC 32 Policy SIG. Therefore, this proposal is being returned to the author and the Policy SIG mailing list for further discussion. Proposal details ---------------- This proposal calls for the reservation of adequate IPv6 address space for each economy in the Asia Pacific region. Future allocations of this space to be made to organizations and stakeholders in the usual way. Proposal details including the full text of the proposal, history, and links to mailing list discussions are available at: http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-100 Regards Andy, Skeeve, and Masato _______________________________________________________________________ prop-100-v001: National IP Address Plan - Allocation of country-wide IP address blocks _______________________________________________________________________ Author: Rakesh Mohan Agarwal <ddgnt-dot(a)nic.in> Version: 2 Date: 30 August 2011 1. Introduction --------------- A proposal was submitted to APNIC community on 29th July 2011 for the reservation of a contiguous IPv6 address block for different organizations / stakeholders in an economy. In that proposal I have tried to put forward some issues regarding the current practice of APNIC in the allocation of IPv6 addresses. Further clarifications were given by me on 17/8, 22/8 and 28/8 against various comments and observations received during the period after that also. In the light of the above proposal and clarifications issued by me, I am submitting a revised version of Prop-100 for better understanding of the community members giving some background of why this proposal was submitted by India. The Government of India released a national IPv6 policy in July 2010 in which it took the following important decisions – 1. All major service providers will target to handle IPv6 traffic and offer IPv6 services by December 2011 2. All central and state government ministries and departments, including its PSUs, shall start using IPv6 services by March-2012 3. Formation of India IPv6 Task Force For the implementation of the above policy decisions many discussions were held with service providers and organizations in which they were of the opinion that there should be proper address planning for different organizations within the economy. So taking cue from this, Government of India (Department of Telecommunications) set up a committee for formulation of a National IPv6 address policy. In the 2nd meeting of the committee held on 18th July 2011 in New Delhi, members were of the opinion that India as a whole should request for the reservation of a suitably-sized block of IPv6 addresses from APNIC. This block can be allocated to different organizations by keeping in view the long term planning perspective. So it was decided that this issue should be taken up with APNIC. As this was a policy related issue, and other economies in the APNIC region may also have similar needs, therefore, the proposal was put up to APNIC for address block reservation at the economy level for subsequent allocation to different organizations within the economies in the APNIC region. 2. Summary ---------- Right now IPv6 addresses are being allocated to individual organizations in different economies by APNIC within a certain policy framework, which was developed in the IPv4 era. But there are certain concerns with the above APNIC policy - (a) Contiguous address block allocation is not ensured by APNIC when an organization goes back to APNIC for further allocation (reapplying after more than one year) (b) Non provision of address space for future organizations in economies who are not in a position (or not aware) to ask for addresses at present. APNIC policy does not currently allow address blocks to be allocated at the economy level, so through this proposal, we are seeking a change in the policy for reservation of adequate IPv6 address space economy wise for further allocation to different organizations and stakeholders within the economy. 3. Situation in other RIRs -------------------------- No other RIRs presently have a program to assess the needs of individual economies in their region and reserve appropriately-sized address blocks. However, economies in other RIRs may have similar needs and a similar program of assessment may be appropriate. 4. Details ---------- In the current policy framework of APNIC, addresses are allocated to different organizations in different economies when they are able to demonstrate their need for those addresses and they apply for them. However, in this process two requirements, mentioned in summary above, are not taken into consideration. In the era of IPv4, when the addresses were in severe shortage, such a demonstrated need policy was relevant but in the era of IPv6 it is not. IPv6 addresses are in abundance and their planning and distribution is also at a very nascent stage. The main objective of this proposal is to ensure that all economies (and the different present and future organizations in those economies) can ensure they will get a suitable share of the IPv6 address space, in one or more large contiguous blocks, whether they need it now or at a later date. This will also help different organizations in different economies to plan their networks in a more effective manner as they will have a reasonably fair idea of the IPv6 address space allocation in future. This proposal can be implemented by APNIC in following manner. (A) Analysis and Projection of Requirements Each economy in the APNIC region is different in terms of population, population growth rate, GDP growth rate, mobile, internet and broadband penetration growth rate, social requirements etc. There could be many other factors, which could be taken into consideration. These factors would help to make an aggregate estimate of the present and future IPv6 address requirements of all organizations and stakeholders in each economy. The analysis of each economy in the APNIC region could be conducted in one of the following ways - 1. By APNIC, since it has more experience across different economies and different RIRs. 2. Alternatively, a representative body in each economy, which could be the government of that economy or a prominent industry association or any other recognised body, may be approached by APNIC for estimating the needs of that economy. However, in this case APNIC may need to\ conduct awareness programmes for their education and sufficient time is also required for making such estimation. 3. Any other suitable mechanism deemed fit by APNIC for doing such estimation. Through these analysis and projection estimates, economy wise IPv6 address requirement (based on the requirements of different organizations and stakeholders) will emerge. This process will definitely take some time. (B) Reservation of the IPv6 address space for different economies (for their organizations and stakeholders) by APNIC Based on the above projections and estimates, APNIC may keep one or more suitably sized blocks reserved for different economies for ultimate use of organizations and stakeholders of those economies. APNIC may also keep some large blocks unreserved, i.e. not reserved for any economy in the beginning, for any sudden unforeseen requirements in future. The allocation of addresses from these reserved blocks to organizations and stakeholders in different economies may be done directly by APNIC or through an NIR (wherever existing) as it is doing at present. Ultimately these addresses will be allocated to individual organizations / stakeholders and not to the economy. As an example, in case of India, after some discussions with service providers, internet associations and other stakeholders, an estimate of current and future requirements of a /16 block, initially, has been suggested. However, the firm requirement has to be deliberated based upon a detailed study as suggested above. Detailed operational issues for implementing this policy, if approved, will have to be deliberated upon separately. 5. Pros/Cons ------------ Advantages: 1. The various IPv6 awareness programmes for different economies, the various studies for estimation of needs of different economies and management of the reserved IPv6 blocks as mentioned above will no doubt increase the job of APNIC in the immediate future, but over a long period of time, this would prove to be very beneficial for IPv6 deployment and also make the job of APNIC easier since APNIC would be very clear on what future allocations it can make. 2. The economies and their organizations will also benefit since they will have a fair idea of what they will get in future and they can plan accordingly for the long term for IPv6 deployment. Disadvantages: 1. There may be short term workload/financial implications for APNIC for analysis and projection studies, training and awareness etc. These however, should not be a constraint because otherwise also APNIC has to work for IPv6 awareness and its deployment in all economies in APNIC region. 6. Effect on APNIC ------------------ 1. It would prove to be very beneficial for IPv6 deployment and also make the job of APNIC easier since APNIC would be very clear on what future allocations it can make. 2. Address allocation will be more organized and orderly. 7. Effect on NIRs ----------------- NIRs can allocate IP addresses to individual members in its geographical area from the reserved blocks as per the actual projections of individual members. * 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 ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1392 / Virus Database: 1520/3879 - Release Date: 09/05/11 ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1411 / Virus Database: 2092/3992 - Release Date: 11/02/11

2 1

End of comment period: prop-096: Maintaining demonstrated needs requirement in transfer policy
by Andy Linton 01 Nov '11

01 Nov '11

_____________________________________________________________________ prop-096: Maintaining demonstrated needs requirement in transfer policy after the final /8 phase _____________________________________________________________________ Dear colleagues The eight-week final comment period for the proposal 'Maintaining demonstrated needs requirement in transfer policy after the final /8 phase' has ended. During the comment period there were no objections raised to the proposal. The Chairs therefore deem that consensus has been maintained on the proposal. Only one comment was received on prop-096 suggesting the phrase 'after the final /8 phase' was no longer required as APNIC has now reached this stage of IPv4 exhaustion. The Chairs do not see this as an objection and believe the phrase makes no material difference to the intent of the proposal. We formally request that the APNIC Executive Council endorse this proposal. For a detailed history of this proposal see: http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-096 Regards APNIC Policy SIG Chairs Andy, Masato and Skeeve

1 0

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

sig-policy November 2011