sig-policy August 2011

sig-policy@lists.apnic.net

49 participants
40 discussions

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

Summary of discussion prop-100
by Andy Linton 01 Sep '11

01 Sep '11

My apologies for this being delayed. Yesterday was my first time through the Policy SIG meeting as Chair and this got missed. _______________________________________________________________________ prop-100: National IP Address Plan - Allocation of country-wide IP address blocks _______________________________________________________________________ Dear SIG members Below is a summary of discussions on the proposal to date. We encourage you to continue discussions on the mailing list before the Policy SIG. Regards, Andy and Terence Proposal summary ----------------- This proposal calls for adequate IPv6 address space per economy be reserved for future allocations to organizations and stakeholders within that economy. Discussion statistics ---------------------- Version 1 posted to Policy SIG mailing list: 2 August 2011 Version 2 posted to Policy SIG mailing list: 30 August 2011 Number of posts since proposal first posted: 108 Number of people participating in discussions: 34 Summary of discussion to date ------------------------------ - There was very little consensus on this proposal during mailing list discussion with the majority of participants either strongly supporting or strongly opposing the proposal. Very few if any fell in between. - Many participants questioned version 1 on its technical merit. http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-100

6 9

Re: [sig-policy] FW: prop-100 National IP Address Plan - Allocationof country-wide IP address blocks
by ajwaninaresh＠gmail.com 01 Sep '11

01 Sep '11

Also, one hour tutorial shud take place on respecting views. Regards, Naresh Ajwani ------Original Message------ From: Randy Bush Sender: sig-policy-bounces(a)lists.apnic.net To: sig-policy(a)lists.apnic.net Sent: Aug 27, 2011 11:54 PM Subject: Re: [sig-policy] FW: prop-100 National IP Address Plan - Allocationof country-wide IP address blocks apnic meeting organizers and policy sig chairs, at this late date, is it possible to add a one hour tutorial on inter-domain routing basics to the front of the policy sig meeting? it appears as if we are going to need it to have the discussion of prop-100 be at all reality based. if pfs won't give it, i will. randy * 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 Sent from my BlackBerry® smartphone from Tata Indicom

17 33

Summary of discussion prop-099
by Andy Linton 31 Aug '11

31 Aug '11

My apologies for this being delayed. Yesterday was my first time through the Policy SIG meeting as Chair and this got missed. _______________________________________________________________________ prop-099: IPv6 Reservation for Large Networks _______________________________________________________________________ Dear SIG members Below is a summary of discussions on the proposal to date. We encourage you to continue discussions on the mailing list before the Policy SIG. Regards, Andy and Terence Proposal summary ----------------- This proposal extends the IPv6 request process to allow large ISPs to request multiple prefixes within a single, contiguous, reserved space. Discussion statistics ---------------------- Version 1 posted to Policy SIG mailing list: 2 August 2011 Number of posts since proposal first posted: 12 Number of people participating in discussions: 9 Summary of discussion to date ------------------------------ - It was noted that the sparse allocation practise used currently effectively results in a "reservation" of a /24 per allocation. The Secretariat was asked to confirm how binary chop works (See next point). - The binary chop algorithm that APNIC Secretariat use to allocate IPv6 does not specifically reserve space. The algorithm simply maximizes the "distance" between neighbouring allocations. As more space gets allocated, this distance will be reduced and fragmentation could occur. - It was questioned whether prop-098 or even current needs assessment would adequately fill the needs the proposal seeks to address. http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-099

1 0

[Sig-policy-chair] [draft] Summary of discussion prop-098
by Andy Linton 31 Aug '11

31 Aug '11

My apologies for this being delayed. Yesterday was my first time through the Policy SIG meeting as Chair and this got missed. _______________________________________________________________________ prop-098: Optimizing IPv6 allocation strategies (simplified) _______________________________________________________________________ Dear SIG members Below is a summary of discussions on the proposal to date. We encourage you to continue discussions on the mailing list before the Policy SIG. Regards, Andy and Terence Proposal summary ----------------- This is a proposal to allow for more generous IPv6 allocations to service providers in order to promote better aggregation and easier optimization across their networks as they grow. Discussion statistics ---------------------- Version 1 posted to Policy SIG mailing list: 2 August 2011 Number of posts since proposal first posted: 17 Number of people participating in discussions: 9 Summary of discussion to date ------------------------------ - The purpose of lowering the minimum allocation to a /36 was questioned by some participants. The author acknowledged that this was an approach the ARIN community had felt was appropriate and that he was willing to take this out of the proposal. - There were specific questions about the working of PAUs and other aspects of the proposal. - Others volunteered their support for the proposal with one suggesting that it might mean prop--099 was unnecessary, and another suggesting that the proposed working group could look at the issue more closely. http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-098

1 0

Summary of discussion prop-096
by Andy Linton 31 Aug '11

31 Aug '11

My apologies for this being delayed. Yesterday was my first time through the Policy SIG meeting as Chair and this got missed. _______________________________________________________________________ prop-096: Maintaining demonstrated needs requirement in transfer policy after the final /8 phase _______________________________________________________________________ Dear SIG members Below is a summary of discussions on the proposal to date. We encourage you to continue discussions on the mailing list before the Policy SIG. Regards, Andy and Terence Proposal summary ----------------- This is a proposal to maintain the requirement for recipients of IPv4 transfers to justify their need for address space beyond the current allocation phase and into the final /8 phase. Discussion statistics ---------------------- Version 1 posted to Policy SIG mailing list: 25 January 2011 Number of posts since proposal first posted: 10 Number of people participating in discussions: 6 Summary of discussion to date ------------------------------ - This proposal was returned to the mailing list following APNIC 32. - Discussion falls into two distinct opinions. There are those who argue the proposal rectifies an imbalance which prevents Inter-RIR transfer of resources with APNIC where there is high demand, and RIR regions where supply of IPv4 resources exists. - Those against, argue that a willingness to pay money for transferred resources demonstrates a need and that without an open market for transfers these transactions will be driven underground at the expense of accurate data in the registry. http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-096 _______________________________________________ Sig-policy-chair mailing list Sig-policy-chair(a)apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy-chair

1 0

Monthly List Reminder
by noreply＠apnic.net 31 Aug '11

31 Aug '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

Re: [sig-policy] FW: prop-100 National IP Address Plan - Allocation of country-wide IP address blocks
by RAKESH MOHAN AGARWAL 28 Aug '11

28 Aug '11

Dear all, Since my last posting to SIG Policy on 22/08/2011 I have received number of comments from participants. Through this reply I am giving my response to these comments. I would like to reiterate that the theme of prop-100 is to ask the APNIC community to make a policy for reservation of contiguous IP address blocks of certain minimum size for all countries in the APNIC region whether they are demanding or not so that they can meet out the requirements of their organizations out of these reserved blocks in future. 1. IPv4 distribution in 1996 versus today if proposal was accepted in 1996 (comments by Mark Newton, John Mann, Tom Vest etc.) (a) If a policy like prop-100 would have been implemented in 1996, the IPv4 distribution today would have been very different. The status of IPv6 today in terms of less demand and large availability is similar to the situation of IPv4 in the early nineties. Due to inadequate planning of IPv4, large blocks of IPv4 were indiscriminately given to different organizations in only a few countries, thereby creating shortage of addresses very soon. When this fact dawned upon the custodians of IPv4 addresses, needs based policies were evolved to restrict the allocation of addresses. The prices of IPv4 addresses went up and became costly for organizations which came later. The net result is that today late entrant organizations are paying a high cost for IPv4 addresses and in reality subsidizing those organizations who are holding more addresses. (b) Regarding the comment that such a policy in 1996 would lead to more wastage of addresses upto 50% is hypothetical. Is there any study which leads to such conclusions? Even if we assume that there would have been more wastage, the beauty of a prop-100 like policy is that it would have led to the following – a. All the countries would have got some address space reserved for their organizations for future use b. Technologies like NAT was primarily developed to compensate the IPv4 address shortage which distorted the original architecture of the Internet c. IPv6 would also have come much earlier. d. There would be less of subsidization of organization in countries holding large blocks of addresses. (c) Regarding the comments that hoarding of addresses by economies would lead to dampening of the internet / smart phone revolution is again hypothetical and perhaps unsustainable. E.g. a smart phone revolution is happening in India in spite of shortage of addresses. So there appears no correlation between the two. 2. When 2 years ago, there were 300 million addresses, why Indian ISPs did not apply ? What is broken in the current APNIC policy ? (Comment by John Mann) (a) First I would like to state that our proposal is for all countries in the APNIC region and not just for India alone. (b) As far as allocation of IPv4 addresses to Indian ISPs is concerned, the commenter has tried to guess some reasons but those are just assumptions as no such study has been done by anyone on this subject as we understand. (c) Two years ago India was having just 18.5 million addresses and now it has 34.5 million addresses for more than 350 million data users out of more than 850 million mobile users. There is almost 90% growth in allocation. This may be happening with other economies also. But it seems current APNIC policies are not taking adequate care to forecast needs of different economies to make provision for adequate address blocks for them. Therefore, I would like to summarize below what I feel is broken in current APNIC policy - If countries / organizations are not aware of their requirements then it means there is lack of awareness and APNIC needs to do something about it. Perhaps all stakeholders are not adequately involved. Only those organizations are being entertained who are approaching APNIC, others are possibly not been taken care of. - Late entrant organizations are paying a higher price for their addresses as compared to those who came earlier. By giving a suggestion “to go for reservation after 25% exhaustion of the IPv6 address space”, a situation like IPv4 is being encouraged in which organizations that will come at a later date will be made to pay a higher price than what it would cost them today. (d) APNIC may like to set up some kind of a study to work out the details covering all the countries in the APNIC region and suitably address the issues in their policy. 3. Conflict between “Operational Policies of NIR” and prop-100 (Comment Chu-Yi) It is possible that that there may be conflict between prop-100 and NIR policy. Existing policies may need review and changes made wherever needed. 4. Comments by M/s Reliance (Indian Service Provider) They have suggested working out a mode of distribution of IPv6 addresses to different organizations if a large block is given. I would like to state that this mode of distribution can be left to the individual countries provided they are not in conflict with APNIC policies. As far as India is concerned it can be done by proposed NIR involving all stakeholders. In addition to above, I will also like to tell that many technical comments have also been given to prop-100 and people have tried to examine this proposal entirely on its technicalities. But the purpose of proposal prop-100 is to ask the APNIC community to make a policy for reservation of contiguous IP address blocks of certain minimum size for all countries in the APNIC region whether they are demanding or not so that they can meet out the requirements of their organizations out of these reserved blocks. There is nothing much technical about it. Though I have mentioned some technical advantages, but these are not the sole purpose of the proposal. The proposal is all about judicious planning and distribution of addresses with a long term perspective. (R.M.Agarwal) (B.K.Nath)

9 11

Re: [sig-policy] FW: prop-100 National IP Address Plan - Allocationof country-wide IP address blocks
by ajwaninaresh＠gmail.com 27 Aug '11

27 Aug '11

I can't call you that.... Regards ------Original Message------ From: Randy Bush To: ajwaninaresh(a)gmail.com Cc: sig-policy-bounces(a)lists.apnic.net Cc: sig-policy(a)lists.apnic.net Sent: Aug 28, 2011 1:00 AM Subject: Re: [sig-policy] FW: prop-100 National IP Address Plan - Allocationof country-wide IP address blocks > Also, one hour tutorial shud take place on respecting views. damned hard to explain to a router randy Sent from my BlackBerry® smartphone from Tata Indicom

1 0

Re: [sig-policy] FW: prop-100 National IP Address Plan - Allocation of country-wide IP address blocks
by RAKESH MOHAN AGARWAL 26 Aug '11

26 Aug '11

Clarifications in response to comments received from various members on proposal Prop-100 submitted to APNIC 1. Brief of proposal PROP-100 A proposal was submitted to APNIC community from India on 29th July 2011 for allocation of contiguous IPv6 address block allocation country wise. In the proposal I have tried to put forward some issues regarding the current practice of APNIC in allocation of IPv6 addresses, which results in fragmentation of the address space and lack of long term planning in contiguous IPv6 address block allocation to organizations within a country. In this proposal I have also tried to bring out that till the NIR is created in India, to avoid random allocation of IPv6 addresses and fragmentation of the address space, APNIC should allocate IPv6 addresses from a large contiguous block only (for which I have proposed a /17 block, now revised to /16 block, if we consider nibble boundaries for allocation) from which all organizations from India are allocated the IPv6 addresses in future. Once the NIR becomes operational, this block may be allocated to the NIR for management of the address space for India. 2. From the various comments received from APNIC community members, it appears that there is a need to provide further clarifications to proposal prop-100, which are summed up as below - Everyone is aware of the fact that IPv6 is in the initial stages of deployment and therefore, this is the right time for taking steps which were missed in the IPv4 era. There are 2 very important aspects in the Internet address space, which are also some of the most important address management objectives in APNIC policy and needs to be considered – a. Conservation - The IPv4 address space was 32-bit only, but due to bulk allotments to the early users and insufficient planning for future allocations, the free addresses were exhausted fast. India, which has a very fast growing ICT user base, mostly among the mobile users, did not get enough IPv4 addresses. We are having only 34 million IPv4 addresses for a telecom subscriber base of around 850 million in which there are about 360 million data users. India has recently rolled out 3G services and deployment of LTE services in future is already on the drawing boards of major operators. Every ICT user in INDIA, down the line in near future will be using IP technology in his day to day life. Because of paucity of IPv4 addresses, India has decided to adopt IPv6 in a big way and so we have already released a National IPv6 Policy in July 2010. Even though the IPv6 address space is 128 bits, which is considered almost infinite, the address space has to be conserved with proper and adequate planning for sufficient time period and considering the requirements of different economies in APNIC region. Therefore, the existing need based policy, putting emphasis on immediate needs only, required to be redefined in the IPv6 era and the policy should now address long term needs of the organizations and users of different economies. b. Aggregation – It is agreed that the advantage of aggregation of the address space would largely depend on the organizations individual routing policy and hence not entirely eliminate the fragmentation issue but would definitely reduce the issue since larger aggregated address spaces could be announced .This objective in APNIC policy can be addressed by allocation of large contiguous blocks to organizations seeking IPv6 addresses for present and future needs. Since the current policy is a need-based policy, where IP addresses are allocated on the basis of immediate need, there are certain concerns in this approach – i. Even though organizations can fairly predict their IP address need for the immediate future, they go back to APNIC only when they actually need it, because they don’t want to pay and block their money for a resource, which they will need a few years down the line. They go mostly by commercial considerations which is very natural for them. This may not have been considered in APNIC Policy . However, if a big block is allocated to a country on behalf of its different organizations, the country will take care of further allocations to the different organizations in a planned manner considering all facts for sufficient time period. This will not only meet the technical requirement of aggregation but also meet the needs of different stakeholders. ii. Additionally the aggregated country level address procurement would also have the cost benefit which can further be passed on to the organizations and help bring their Capex down. 3. The larger internet population of the country like the Government, Service providers, Organizations based in India and the billion populations from India would use IP addresses from blocks given to Indian organizations. There will also be call centres, BPOs, multinational companies etc. having offices in India using the IP addresses allocated by other RIRs who will also be benefitted because now they will also have an option to get contiguous address blocks for operations in India. Therefore, a large contiguous block will help to increase routing efficiency to some extent. 4. APNIC has already approved the proposal of India for setting up a “National Internet Registry” within the country. This NIR will take some time to establish and operate. Further, NIR will also receive large blocks of addresses from APNIC (maybe in one tranche or multiple tranches) for further distribution to different organizations in India. Once the NIR is setup, the address planning and management can be done by the NIR. Since India is a large country of nearly 1.2 billion citizens, already having about 850 million telecom users with 360 million data users, and upcoming 3G and LTE networks.Additionally each of these users would require multiple IP addresses for the triple play services and applications. Hence at least a /16 address block will be required. 5. Therefore, the proposal prop-100, which has been submitted to APNIC, on behalf of different organizations in our country, seeks to address these issues to ensure that whatever addresses are allocated by APNIC (and subsequently by the upcoming NIR) are from one single large block and not from different blocks. This will not only ensure network optimization but also adequate and contiguous address space availability for different organizations/stakeholders in a planned manner in future and with cost benefits to the end users. 6. With this, it is hoped that most of the general queries regarding the proposal are clarified. Sd/- R M AGARWAL Deputy Director General (Networks & Technologies), Department of Telecommunications, Government of India Room no. 1104, Sanchar Bhawan 20, Ashoka Road, New Delhi – 110001 India Mob: +91- 9868133440 Off no. +91 11 23372606

9 8

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

sig-policy August 2011