sig-policy January 2017

sig-policy@lists.apnic.net

11 participants
10 discussions

prop-118-v001: No need policy in APNIC region
by Sumon Ahmed Sabir 01 Mar '17

01 Mar '17

Dear SIG members The proposal "prop-118-v001: No need policy in APNIC region" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review. It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting at APNIC 43 in Ho Chi Minh City, Viet Nam on Wednesday, 1 March 2017. We invite you to review and comment on the proposal on the mailing list before the meeting. The comment period on the mailing list before an APNIC meeting is an important part of the policy development process. We encourage you to express your views on the proposal: - Do you support or oppose this proposal? - Does this proposal solve a problem you are experiencing? If so, tell the community about your situation. - Do you see any disadvantages in this proposal? - Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear? - What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more effective? Information about this proposal is available at: http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-118 Regards Masato, Sumon APNIC Policy SIG Chairs ------------------------------------------------------- prop-118-v001: No need policy in APNIC region ------------------------------------------------------- Proposer: David Hilario d.hilario(a)laruscloudservice.net 1. Problem statement ------------------------------------------------------- Whenever a transfer of IPv4 is taking place within the APNIC region, the recipient needs to demonstrate the "need" for the IPv4 space they intend to transfer. Companies transferring IPv4 space to their pool do this in ordcer to enable further growth in their network, since the space is not coming from the free public pool, regular policies that are intended to protect the limited pool of IPv4 space can be removed in transfers. 2. Objective of policy change ------------------------------------------------------- Simplify transfer of IPv4 space between resource holders. Ease some administration on APNIC staff. 3. Situation in other regions ------------------------------------------------------- RIPE region has an all around no need policy in IPv4, even for first allocation, transfers do not require the recipient to demonstrate their intended use of the resources . ARIN, need base for both transfers and resources issued by ARIN. AFRINIC, need based policy on transfers (not active yet) and resource request from AFRINIC based on needs. LACNIC, no transfers, need based request. Out of all these RIR, only ARIN and RIPE NCC have inter-RIR transfer policies, ARIN has made clear in the past that the "no need" policy from the RIPE region would break inter-RIR transfers from ARIN to RIPE region. 4. Proposed policy solution ------------------------------------------------------- Simply copy the RIPE policy to solve the ARIN transfer incompatibility: - APNIC shall accept all transfers of Internet number resources to its service region, provided that they comply with the policies relating to transfers within its service region. - For transfers from RIR regions that require the receiving region to have needs-based policies, recipients must provide a plan to the APNIC for the use of at least 50% of the transferred resources within 5 years. source: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-644 5. Advantages / Disadvantages ------------------------------------------------------- Advantages: - Harmonisation with RIPE region. - Makes transfer simpler and smoother within APNIC and between APNIC and RIPE. - maintains a compatibility with ARIN. - Removes the uncertainty that a transfer may be rejected based on potentially badly documented needs. - Lowers the overall administrative burden on APNIC staff. Disadvantages: none. 6. Impact on resource holders ------------------------------------------------------- None 7. References -------------------------------------------------------

5 4

Revised prop-116-v003: Prohibit to transfer IPv4 addresses in the final /8 block
by Sumon Ahmed Sabir 22 Feb '17

22 Feb '17

Dear SIG members A new version of the proposal "prop-116: Prohibit to transfer IPv4 addresses in the final /8 block" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review. Information about earlier versions is available from: http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-116 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 and Sumon ------------------------------------------------------- prop-116-v003: Prohibit to transfer IPv4 addresses in the final /8 block ------------------------------------------------------- Proposer: Tomohiro Fujisaki fujisaki(a)syce.net 1. Problem statement -------------------- There are a lot of transfers of IPv4 address blocks from 103/8 happening, both within the APNIC region and among RIRs. Then number of transfer from 103/8 block are about 200, which is about 12% of the total number of transfers. This looks so high since APNIC manages about 40/8. And based on the information provided by APNIC secretariat, number of transfers from the 103/8 block are increasing year by year. Updated by APNIC Secretariat on 27 January 2017: 1) M&A transfers containing 103/8 space +------+-----------+-----------+- | | Total | Number of | | Year | Transfers | /24s | +------+-----------+-----------+- | 2011 | 3 | 12 | | 2012 | 10 | 46 | | 2013 | 18 | 66 | | 2014 | 126 | 498 | | 2015 | 147 | 573 | | 2016 | 63 | 239 | +------+-----------+------------+- 2) Market transfers containing 103/8 space +------+-----------+-----------+ | | Total | Number of | | Year | Transfers | /24s | +------+-----------+-----------+ | 2011 | 2 | 2 | | 2012 | 21 | 68 | | 2013 | 16 | 61 | | 2014 | 25 | 95 | | 2015 | 67 | 266 | | 2016 | 103 | 394 | +------+-----------+-----------+ And also, transfers from the 103/8 block include: - Take place within 1 year of distribution, or - Multiple blocks to a single organization in case of beyond 1 year. Further, there is a case where a single organization have received 12 blocks transfers from 103 range. see: https://www.apnic.net/transfer-resources/transfer-logs >From these figures, it is quite likely that substantial number of 103/8 blocks are being used for transfer purpose. This conflicts with the concept of distribution of 103/8 block (prop-062), which is intended to accommodate minimum IPv4 address blocks for new comers. °°prop-062: Use of final /8 °°https://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-062 2. Objective of policy change ----------------------------- When stated problem is solved, distribution from 103/8 block will be consistent with its original purpose, for distribution for new entrants to the industry. Without the policy change, substantial portion of 103/8 blocks will be consumed for transfer purpose. 3. Situation in other regions ----------------------------- None. 4. Proposed policy solution --------------------------- Prohibit transfer IPv4 addresses under /8 address block (103/8) which have not passed two years after its allocation/assignment. If the address block allocated to a LIR in two years is not needed any more, it must return to APNIC to allocate to another organization using final /8 policy. In the case of transfers due to M&A, merged organization can have up to /22 IPv4 address in the 103/8 block in principle. If there are technical reasons such as all address is used in separate networks and announced from multiple ASes, merged organization can keep them. Otherwise, the 103/8 IPv4 address more than /22 must return to APNIC to allocate to another organization using final /8 policy. 5. Advantages / Disadvantages ----------------------------- Advantages: - It makes 103/8 blocks available according to the original purpose, as distribution for new entrants (rather than being consumed for transfer purpose) - IPv4 addresses under final /8 are not transferred to outside APNIC. - By prohibiting transfer them, it is possible to keep one /22 for each LIRs state, which is fair for all LIRs. Disadvantages: None. 6. Impact on resource holders ------------------------------ - LIRs cannot transfer address blocks under 103/8. No big impact while they use it. - Organizations which needs to receive transferred IPv4 can continue to do so, outside 103/8 blocks (which should be made available for new entrants) 7. References -------------

4 3

Monthly List Reminder
by noreply＠apnic.net 31 Jan '17

31 Jan '17

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] Revised prop-116-v003: Prohibit to transfer IPv4 addresses in the final /8 block [SECURITY=UNCLASSIFIED]
by HENDERSON MIKE, MR 29 Jan '17

29 Jan '17

Folks, I have said it before, and I’m afraid I will have to say it again after this, but I do not support any further changes to IPv4 policy. So far as I am concerned, this patient should have “Do Not Resuscitate” marked in big letters on its record card, and probably tattooed across its chest too The worse the “IPv4 Problem” gets, the more pressure to roll out IPv6 and to address the practical issues with really big scale IPv6 deployments. Regards Mike From: sig-policy-bounces(a)lists.apnic.net [mailto:sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net] On Behalf Of Sumon Ahmed Sabir Sent: Monday, 30 January 2017 12:39 a.m. To: sig-policy(a)apnic.net Subject: [sig-policy] Revised prop-116-v003: Prohibit to transfer IPv4 addresses in the final /8 block Dear SIG members A new version of the proposal "prop-116: Prohibit to transfer IPv4 addresses in the final /8 block" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review. Information about earlier versions is available from: http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-116 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 and Sumon ------------------------------------------------------- prop-116-v003: Prohibit to transfer IPv4 addresses in the final /8 block ------------------------------------------------------- Proposer: Tomohiro Fujisaki fujisaki(a)syce.net<mailto:fujisaki@syce.net> 1. Problem statement -------------------- There are a lot of transfers of IPv4 address blocks from 103/8 happening, both within the APNIC region and among RIRs. Then number of transfer from 103/8 block are about 200, which is about 12% of the total number of transfers. This looks so high since APNIC manages about 40/8. And based on the information provided by APNIC secretariat, number of transfers from the 103/8 block are increasing year by year. Updated by APNIC Secretariat on 27 January 2017: 1) M&A transfers containing 103/8 space +------+-----------+-----------+- | | Total | Number of | | Year | Transfers | /24s | +------+-----------+-----------+- | 2011 | 3 | 12 | | 2012 | 10 | 46 | | 2013 | 18 | 66 | | 2014 | 126 | 498 | | 2015 | 147 | 573 | | 2016 | 63 | 239 | +------+-----------+------------+- 2) Market transfers containing 103/8 space +------+-----------+-----------+ | | Total | Number of | | Year | Transfers | /24s | +------+-----------+-----------+ | 2011 | 2 | 2 | | 2012 | 21 | 68 | | 2013 | 16 | 61 | | 2014 | 25 | 95 | | 2015 | 67 | 266 | | 2016 | 103 | 394 | +------+-----------+-----------+ And also, transfers from the 103/8 block include: - Take place within 1 year of distribution, or - Multiple blocks to a single organization in case of beyond 1 year. Further, there is a case where a single organization have received 12 blocks transfers from 103 range. see: https://www.apnic.net/transfer-resources/transfer-logs From these figures, it is quite likely that substantial number of 103/8 blocks are being used for transfer purpose. This conflicts with the concept of distribution of 103/8 block (prop-062), which is intended to accommodate minimum IPv4 address blocks for new comers. °°prop-062: Use of final /8 °°https://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-062 2. Objective of policy change ----------------------------- When stated problem is solved, distribution from 103/8 block will be consistent with its original purpose, for distribution for new entrants to the industry. Without the policy change, substantial portion of 103/8 blocks will be consumed for transfer purpose. 3. Situation in other regions ----------------------------- None. 4. Proposed policy solution --------------------------- Prohibit transfer IPv4 addresses under /8 address block (103/8) which have not passed two years after its allocation/assignment. If the address block allocated to a LIR in two years is not needed any more, it must return to APNIC to allocate to another organization using final /8 policy. In the case of transfers due to M&A, merged organization can have up to /22 IPv4 address in the 103/8 block in principle. If there are technical reasons such as all address is used in separate networks and announced from multiple ASes, merged organization can keep them. Otherwise, the 103/8 IPv4 address more than /22 must return to APNIC to allocate to another organization using final /8 policy. 5. Advantages / Disadvantages ----------------------------- Advantages: - It makes 103/8 blocks available according to the original purpose, as distribution for new entrants (rather than being consumed for transfer purpose) - IPv4 addresses under final /8 are not transferred to outside APNIC. - By prohibiting transfer them, it is possible to keep one /22 for each LIRs state, which is fair for all LIRs. Disadvantages: None. 6. Impact on resource holders ------------------------------ - LIRs cannot transfer address blocks under 103/8. No big impact while they use it. - Organizations which needs to receive transferred IPv4 can continue to do so, outside 103/8 blocks (which should be made available for new entrants) 7. References ------------- The information contained in this Internet Email message is intended for the addressee only and may contain privileged information, but not necessarily the official views or opinions of the New Zealand Defence Force. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, disclose, copy or distribute this message or the information in it. If you have received this message in error, please Email or telephone the sender immediately.

1 0

prop-117-v001: Returned IPv4 address management and Final /8 exhaustion
by Sumon Ahmed Sabir 29 Jan '17

29 Jan '17

Dear SIG members The proposal "prop-117: Returned IPv4 address management and Final /8 exhaustion" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review. It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting at APNIC 43 in Ho Chi Minh City, Viet Nam on Wednesday, 1 March 2017. We invite you to review and comment on the proposal on the mailing list before the meeting. The comment period on the mailing list before an APNIC meeting is an important part of the policy development process. We encourage you to express your views on the proposal: - Do you support or oppose this proposal? - Does this proposal solve a problem you are experiencing? If so, tell the community about your situation. - Do you see any disadvantages in this proposal? - Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear? - What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more effective? Information about this proposal is available at: http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-117 Regards Masato and Sumon ------------------------------------------------------- prop-117-v001: Returned IPv4 address management and Final /8 exhaustion ------------------------------------------------------- Proposer: Tomohiro Fujisaki fujisaki(a)syce.net 1. Problem statement -------------------- APNIC currently makes delegations from two IPv4 pools. These are the 103/8 (Final /8) pool and the non-103/8 IPv4 Recovered pool. With current policy, all returned address space, including 103/8 blocks, will be merged into the IPv4 Recovered pool. If a 103/8 block is returned, it is placed in the IPv4 Recovered pool and re-distributed as returned space. Some organisations may receive duplicate blocks from 103/8: one under the final /8 policy, the other under the returned pool policy. Current APNIC Policy requires account holders to receive address space from the 103/8 (Final /8) pool before they can apply for address space from the Recovered pool. APNIC currently manages a Recovered Pool Waiting List for approved requests that cannot be met from the IPv4 Recovered pool. 2. Objective of policy change ----------------------------- To simplify the address pool management and to provide guidance for 103/8 pool exhaustion. 3. Situation in other regions ----------------------------- None. 4. Proposed policy solution --------------------------- - Recovered 103/8 space will be placed in the 103/8 (Final /8) pool. - Recovered non-103/8 space will be placed in the IPv4 Recovered pool. - The first time an approved request cannot be fulfilled from the 103/8 pool, Final /8 delegations will end. - APNIC will begin to manage only one (Recovered) IPv4 pool containing any residual 103/8 space and all future returns, including 103/8 returns. - Each new account holder can receive up to a /22 from the IPv4 Recovered pool. - Existing account holders who have not yet received space from the Recovered pool may continue to apply for up to a /22 from this pool. - A waiting list will be created if approved requests cannot be fulfilled. Each new account holder will be given priority in the waiting list. 5. Advantages / Disadvantages ----------------------------- Advantages: - Simplifying management of remaining IPv4 address pools. Disadvantages: None. 6. Impact on resource holders ------------------------------ No impact to resource holders. 7. References -------------

2 1

Policy SIG Chair and Co-Chair Nominations now open
by George Odagi 27 Jan '17

27 Jan '17

Dear Community Members, The APNIC Secretariat is now seeking volunteers to serve as Chair and Co-Chair of the APNIC Policy SIG. The SIG Guidelines prefer that Chair and Co-Chair terms end in alternate years to provide continuity if there is a change in leadership. We propose the Chair be elected for a two-year term. If a new Co-Chair is needed they will serve a one-year term. The deadline for nominations is: ------------------------------------------ 23:59 (UTC +10) Wednesday, 22 February 2017 The responsibilities are outlined in Section 2.3 of the APNIC SIG Guidelines. https://www.apnic.net/sig-guidelines Nominations will be accepted only by using the following form: https://www.apnic.net/policy-sig/nominate The election will be the first agenda item of the APNIC Policy SIG meeting on Wednesday, 1 March 2017. 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/ _______________________________________________________

2 1

Public Safety and Accuracy of IP Address WHOIS - at RIPE 73
by Paul Wilson 16 Jan '17

16 Jan '17

Dear Colleagues, For those who took an interest in the presentation on “Public Safety and Accuracy of IP Address WHOIS” which was given at APNIC 42 in Colombo, there has been a similar presentation today at the RIPE 73 meeting in Madrid. In this case a much more detailed case study was given, to show the concerns of the law enforcement community. Presentation file is here: https://ripe73.ripe.net/presentations/54-Presentation_RIPE_NCC_73_Madrid_-_… Video archive is here: https://ripe73.ripe.net/archives/video/1435 All the best, Paul. ________________________________________________________________________ Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC dg(a)apnic.net http://www.apnic.net @apnicdg

2 1

Final Reminder: APNIC 39 Policy Proposal Deadline is 20 January 2017
by Sumon Ahmed Sabir 15 Jan '17

15 Jan '17

Dear Colleagues, This is a final reminder for the deadline next Friday, 20 January 2017 to submit policy proposals for APNIC 43. Only proposals submitted by this date will be discussed at the APNIC 43 Open Policy Meeting in Ho Chi Minh City, Viet Nam on Wednesday, 1 March 2017. Submit a Policy Proposal ---------------------------------- Complete the online form at: http://www.apnic.net/community/policy/proposals/submit For more information on becoming an author go to: https://www.apnic.net/policy/guidelines/authors Propose a presentation -------------------------------- Send your synopsis to: policy(a)apnic.net We look forward to and encourage your participation in the APNIC 43 OPM. Kind regards Masato and Sumon APNIC Policy SIG Chairs

1 0

Reminder: APNIC 39 Policy Proposal Deadline is 20 January 2017
by Sumon Ahmed Sabir 04 Jan '17

04 Jan '17

Dear Colleagues, This is a reminder that the deadline to submit policy proposals for APNIC 43 is:- Friday, 20 January 2017. Only proposals submitted by this date will be discussed at the APNIC 43 Open Policy Meeting in Ho Chi Minh City, Viet Nam on Wednesday, 1 March 2017. Submit a Policy Proposal ---------------------------------- Complete the online form at: http://www.apnic.net/community/policy/proposals/submit For more information on becoming an author go to: https://www.apnic.net/policy/guidelines/authors Propose a presentation -------------------------------- Send your synopsis to: policy(a)apnic.net We look forward to and encourage your participation in the APNIC 43 OPM. Kind regards Masato and Sumon APNIC Policy SIG Chairs

1 0

Mailing list error
by Adam Gosling 04 Jan '17

04 Jan '17

Dear Colleagues Yesterday some of you may have incorrectly received a Draft email from Sumon Sabir dated 26 September 2016. I believe this was a moderation error on my part. Please note that the email is not a new version of prop-116. It is the version that was discussed at APNIC 42. Sorry for any confusion. Regards, Adam Reference: [sig-policy] DRAFT# New version of prop-116: Prohibit to transfer IPv4 addresses in the final /8 block http://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-policy/archive/2017/01/msg00001.… _______________________________________________________ Adam Gosling Senior Internet Policy Analyst, APNIC e: adam(a)apnic.net p: +61 7 3858 3142 m: +61 421 456 243 www.apnic.net _______________________________________________________ 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 January 2017