sig-policy August 2015

sig-policy@lists.apnic.net

6 participants
9 discussions

Agenda at Jakarta meeting
by Masato Yamanishi 03 Sep '15

03 Sep '15

Dear SIG members, We have posted the agenda at Jakarta meeting on the conference web site. <<https://conference.apnic.net/40/program#agenda/day8>> As you can see, we will discuss and ask consensus for following three official proposals. - prop-113: Modification in the IPv4 eligibility criteria - prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria - prop-115: Registration of detailed assignment information in Whois DB In addition, we have three informal presentations. - IPv4 transfer analysis by Geoff Huston - Change of address - when transfers go wrong by Jim Cowie - IP addressing and IoT/M2M services All of them are useful inputs to consider future policy, in particular Geoff's one will show current usage and trends of our last /8 and predict it might be run out in mid term (2-5 years). 2-5 years is not extremely long for major policy discussion as we have experienced in transfer, now is good chance to begin considering about post exhaustion, I believe. You can find his presentation at https://www.evernote.com/l/AGArXQblYYlHPo_NNAB624ati3lDttvq8Is It is very appreciated if you review it and post your comments to the list even before the meeting. Lastly, we have two more community consultations from the Secretariat. - Consultation on Policy Documentation - Whois update from the Secretariat That is all I have currently and I hope to see you in Jakarta. Regards, Masato Yamanishi Policy SIG Chair

1 2

Monthly List Reminder
by noreply＠apnic.net 01 Sep '15

01 Sep '15

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

REMINDER: Policy SIG Co-Chair Nomination Deadline Friday, 4 September
by Adam Gosling 28 Aug '15

28 Aug '15

Dear community members The APNIC Secretariat is now seeking volunteers to serve as Co-Chair of the APNIC Policy SIG. The deadline for nominations is: ------------------------------------------ 23:59 (UTC +10) Friday, 4 September 2015 The responsibilities are outlined in Section 2.5. of the APNIC SIG Guidelines. https://www.apnic.net/sig-guidelines Nominations will be accepted only by using the following form: https://conference.apnic.net/40/policy/nominate The election will be the first agenda item of the APNIC Policy SIG meeting on Thursday, 10 September 2015. Regards Adam Gosling _______________________________________________________ Adam Gosling Internet Policy Development Consultant, APNIC e: adam(a)apnic.net p: +61 7 3858 3142 m: +61 421 456 243 t: @boutpolicy _______________________________________________________ Join the conversation: https://blog.apnic.net/ _______________________________________________________

1 0

prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria to be discussed at APNIC 40
by Masato Yamanishi 12 Aug '15

12 Aug '15

Dear SIG members ## It is NOT new version, just a reminder that this proposal will be discussed at APNIC 40 Version 3 of this proposal was posted to the mailing list during APNIC 39. The proposal did not reach consensus and discussion will continue at APNIC 40. Information about earlier versions is available from: https://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-114 You are encouraged to express your views on the proposal: - Do you support or oppose the proposal? - Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear? - What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more effective? Please find the text of the proposal below. Kind Regards, Masato ----------------------------------------------------------- prop-114-v003: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria ----------------------------------------------------------- Proposer: Aftab Siddiqui aftab.siddiqui(a)gmail.com Skeeve Stevens skeeve(a)eintellegonetworks.com 1. Problem statement -------------------- The current ASN assignment policy states two eligibility criteria and that both criteria should be fulfilled in order to obtain an ASN. The policy seems to imply that both requirements i.e. multi-homing and clearly defined single routing policy must be met simultaneously, this has created much confusion in interpreting the policy. As a result organizations have either provided incorrect information to get the ASN or barred themselves from applying where they still have a valid justification for obtaining an ASN. 2. Objective of policy change ----------------------------- In order to make the policy guidelines simpler we are proposing to modify the text describing the eligibility criteria for ASN assignment by providing alternate criteria to obtaining an ASN. 3. Situation in other regions ----------------------------- ARIN: It is not mandatory but optional to be multi-homed in order get ASN RIPE: Policy to remove multi-homing requirement is currently in discussion and the current phase ends 12 February 2015 (awaiting Chair decision) Policy - https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-03 LACNIC: Only inter-connect is mandatory not multi-homing AFRINIC: It is mandatory to be multi-homed in order to get ASN. 4. Proposed policy solution --------------------------- An organisation is eligible for an ASN assignment if: - they are currently multi-homed, OR - have previous allocated provider independent address space by APNIC, AND intend to multi-home in the future 5. Advantages / Disadvantages ----------------------------- Advantages: By adding the additional criteria of Guidelines managed by APNIC Secretariat, this would enable the Secretariat to make decisions based on common or rare use cases, but that may still be a valid request. Disadvantages: It may be perceived that this policy would enable members to obtain ASN¹s more easily, and in return cause faster consumption of ASN¹s in the region. Given the relative ease of obtaining an ASN with Œwork around¹ methods, we do not perceive this will actually have any effect. 6. Impact on resource holders ----------------------------- No impact on existing resource holders.

2 1

New version of prop-115: Registration of detailed assignment information in whois DB
by Masato Yamanishi 08 Aug '15

08 Aug '15

Dear SIG members A new version of the proposal "prop-115: Registration of detailed assignment information in whois DB" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review. Information about earlier versions is available from: http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-115 You are encouraged to express your views on the proposal: - Do you support or oppose the proposal? - Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear? - What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more effective? Please find the text of the proposal below. Kind Regards, Masato ------------------------------------------------------------------------ prop-115-v003: Registration of detailed assignment information in whois DB ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Proposer: Ruri Hiromi hiromi(a)inetcore.com Tomohiro Fujisaki fujisaki(a)syce.net 1. Problem statement -------------------- Recently, there are some cases need to get IP address assignment information in more detail to specify user IP address. Without this information, operators cannot filter out specific address range, and it might lead to 'over-filter' (i.e. filtering whole ISP's address range). For example: 1) 'Port' range information in IPv4 ISPs are using 'CGN' or other kinds of IPv4 address sharing technology with assignment of IP address and specified port range to their users. In this case, port information is necessary to specify one user. ex) 192.0.2.24/32 1-256 is for HomeA 192.0.2.24/32 257-511 is for HomeB or 192.0.2.0/24 1-65536 is shared address of ISP-X minimum size is /32 2) address assignment size information in IPv6 The IPv6 address assignment size may be different from ISP and its service estimation. Address assignment prefix size will be necessary. ex) 2001:db8:1::0/56 is for HomeA 2001:db8:1:1::0/48 is for HomeB or 2001:db8:1::/36's minimum size is /56 2. Objective of policy change ----------------------------- Lots of operators look a record when harmful behavior coming to their network to identify its IP address confirming it can be filtered or not. The goal is providing more specific information to support these actions. 3. Situation in other regions ----------------------------- No same regulation/discussion can be seen in other regions. 4. Proposed policy solution --------------------------- Provide accurate filtering information generated from whois DB. For IPv4, propose to add 'port range' information to IP address entry. For IPv6, propose to provide 'assignment prefix size' information for specific IPv6 address. 5. Advantages / Disadvantages ----------------------------- Advantages: - operators can set filtering by IP address based on correct assignment information base. - users who share same address space can be avoid to be including bulk filtering. Disadvantages: - registration rule will move to more strict manner. - strict watch and control in registration of database records. - additional record or option will be considered. - privilege for withdrawing detailed information will be set for these records. 6. Impact on APNIC ------------------ This might be beyond the scope of using whois DB and appropriate changes in policy document or guidance to whois DB will be needed. Some kind of modification cost in whois DB might be needed to set access privilege to the detailed information. Some kind of modification cost in whois DB might be needed in Help message/Warning/Alert when whois DB has non-privileged access. Some kind of promotion cost might be needed in announcing. Need cooperation and support from members(ISPs). 7. Other Consideration ---------------------- For the security reason, this detailed records may be able to see only by operators.(some kind of user control/privilege setting is needed) For hosting services, /32 in IPv4 and /128 in IPv6 registration should be discussed based on its operability and possibility. But a harmful activities to filter by IP addresses are coming from hosting services as well. Here it seemed to be some demands. Some ISP use IRR DB to notice their filter policy towards BGP community with "remarks" filed in aut-num record. Need more discussion among APNIC members on using whois DB versus IRR DB. Start a pilot project for research its demands and effectiveness in APNIC region. APNIC is a worthy body to lead this pilot project. There are some opinions that it is not suitable to handle those issues at the Internet Registries (IRs), but we think it should be registered in the IRs database since that is part of assignment information. References ---------- TBD

2 1

prop-113: Modification in the IPv4 eligibility criteria to be discussed at APNIC 40
by Masato Yamanishi 07 Aug '15

07 Aug '15

Dear SIG members ## It is NOT new version, just a reminder that this proposal will be discussed at APNIC 40 Version 3 of prop-113 was posted to the mailing list after Version 2 had failed to reach consensus at APNIC 39. It will be considered for consensus at APNIC 40. Information about earlier versions is available from: https://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-113 You are encouraged to express your views on the proposal: - Do you support or oppose the proposal? - Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear? - What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more effective? Please find the text of the proposal below. Kind Regards, Masato ------------------------------------------------------------ prop-113-v003: Modification in the IPv4 eligibility criteria ------------------------------------------------------------ Proposer: Aftab Siddiqui aftab.siddiqui(a)gmail.com Skeeve Stevens skeeve(a)eintellegonetworks.com 1. Problem statement -------------------- The current APNIC IPv4 delegation policy defines multiple eligibility criteria and applicants must meet one criteria to be eligible to receive IPv4 resources. One of the criteria dictates that ³an organization is eligible if it is currently multi-homed with provider-based addresses, or demonstrates a plan to multi-home within one month² (section 3.3). The policy seems to imply that multi-homing is mandatory even if there is no use case for the applicant to be multi-homed or even when there is only one upstream provider available, this has created much confusion in interpreting this policy. As a result organizations have either tempted to provide incorrect or fabricated multi-homing information to get the IPv4 resources or barred themselves from applying. 2. Objective of policy change ----------------------------- In order to make the policy guidelines simpler we are proposing to modify the text of section 3.3. 3. Situation in other regions ----------------------------- ARIN: There is no multi-homing requirement RIPE: There is no multi-homing requirement. LACNIC: Applicant can either have multi-homing requirement or interconnect. AFRINIC: There is no multi-homing requirement. 4. Proposed policy solution --------------------------- Section 3.3: Criteria for small delegations An organization is eligible if: - it is currently multi-homed, OR - currently utilising provider (ISP) assignment of at least a /24, AND intends to be multi-homed, OR - intends to be multi-homed, AND advertise the prefixes within 6 months Organizations requesting a delegation under these terms must demonstrate that they are able to use 25% of the requested addresses immediately and 50% within one year. 5. Advantages / Disadvantages ----------------------------- Advantages: Simplifies the process of applying for IPv4 address space for small delegations and delays the immediate requirement for multi-homing as determined to be appropriate within the timeframe as detailed in Section 3.3. Disadvantages: There is no known disadvantage of this proposal. 6. Impact on resource holders ----------------------------- No impact on existing resource holders.

1 0

Policy Implementation at ARIN
by George Odagi 04 Aug '15

04 Aug '15

Dear Community Members, This email is to inform you that effective 29 July 2015, ARIN has implemented the following number policies: - ARIN-2014-6: Remove Operational Reverse DNS Text https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2014_6.html - ARIN-2014-21: Modification to CI Pool Size per Section 4.4 https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2014_21.html These new policies are now in effect. A new version of the ARIN Number Resource Policy Manual (NRPM) has been published to the ARIN website. The NRPM is available at: https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html Kind regards, George Odagi Internet Resource Analyst/Policy Support, APNIC e: godagi(a)apnic.net p: +61 7 3858 3191 f: +61 7 3858 3199 www.apnic.net _______________________________________________________ Join the conversation: https://blog.apnic.net/ _______________________________________________________

1 0

Policy Implementation at RIPE NCC
by George Odagi 04 Aug '15

04 Aug '15

Dear Community Members, This email is to inform you that consensus has been reached and the proposal for a change to ripe-643, "IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region" has been accepted by the RIPE community. This proposal has been implemented with immediate effect. - 2015-01: IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-01 This policy change aligns the transfer requirements for all IPv4 allocations. LIRs that receive an IPv4 allocation from the RIPE NCC or via a transfer cannot subsequently transfer this allocation to another party within 24 months. The new RIPE Document is called ripe-649 and is available at: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-649 Kind regards, George Odagi Internet Resource Analyst/Policy Support, APNIC e: godagi(a)apnic.net p: +61 7 3858 3191 f: +61 7 3858 3199 www.apnic.net _______________________________________________________ Join the conversation: https://blog.apnic.net/ _______________________________________________________

1 0

Policy SIG Co-Chair Nominations now open
by Adam Gosling 03 Aug '15

03 Aug '15

Dear community members The APNIC Secretariat is now seeking volunteers to serve as Co-Chair of the APNIC Policy SIG. The responsibilities are outlined in Section 2.5. of the APNIC SIG Guidelines. https://www.apnic.net/sig-guidelines Nominations will be accepted only by using the following form: https://conference.apnic.net/40/policy/nominate The nomination deadline is 23:59 (UTC +10) on Friday, 4 September 2015. Nominees will be asked to provide a short biography and description of their interest in the role. The election will be the first agenda item of the APNIC Policy SIG meeting at APNIC 40, at approximately 09:30 (UTC +7) on Thursday, 10 September 2015. All SIG Chairs undertake this work on a voluntary basis. The APNIC Secretariat speaks on behalf of the community in saying we are very appreciative of the work done by Chairs and Co-Chairs. Regards Adam Gosling _______________________________________________________ Adam Gosling Internet Policy Development Consultant, APNIC e: adam(a)apnic.net p: +61 7 3858 3142 m: +61 421 456 243 t: @boutpolicy _______________________________________________________ Join the conversation: https://blog.apnic.net/ _______________________________________________________

1 0

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

sig-policy August 2015