sig-policy March 2017

sig-policy@lists.apnic.net

9 participants
7 discussions

Final Comment Period for prop-117-v003: Returned IPv4 address management and Final /8 exhaustion
by Sumon Ahmed Sabir 12 Apr '17

12 Apr '17

Dear colleagues, Part of prop-117: "Returned IPv4 address management and Final /8 exhaustion", reached consensus at the APNIC 43 Policy SIG and then later at the AGM. Components of the proposal regarding which pool 103/8 blocks should be returned to reached consensus. There was no agreement on the proposal for Final /8 pool exhaustion procedures. A new version prop-117-v003 was created to make it clear which part of the proposal is reaching the final Comment Period. Synopsis: --------- The proposed policy solution reaching consensus is Handling returned address: - 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. This proposal will now move to the next step in the APNIC Policy Development Process and is being returned to the Policy SIG mailing list for the final Comment Period. At the end of this period the Policy SIG Chairs will evaluate comments made and determine if the consensus reached at APNIC 43 still holds. The Chairs may extend the Comment Period to a maximum of eight (8) weeks to allow further discussion. If consensus holds, the Chair of the Policy SIG will ask the APNIC Executive Council to endorse the proposal for implementation. - Send all comments and questions to: <sig-policy at apnic dot net> - Deadline for comments: 23:59 (UTC +10) Wednesday, 12 April 2017 Proposal details, including the full text of the proposal, history, and links to previous versions are available at: https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/proposals/prop-117/ Regards Sumon, Ching-Heng, Bertrand Policy SIG Chairs ------------------------------------------------------- prop-117-v003: 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 --------------------------- Handling returned address: - 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. 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 -------------

4 4

CONFER--as what happened today in policy discussion.
by Lu Heng 10 Apr '17

10 Apr '17

Dear Community, I am sending this letter at the best wishes for future stable growth and peaceful discussion. My colleague David proposed the policy No Need in APNIC region. The discussion went fairly well, until a point when Adam rose up and declared that the CONFER system was being gamed, he was clearly and understandably emotional. But, in the manner he did that, as the company who are proposing the policy ware receiving overwhelming support in the CONFER system at the time he made the declaration, understandably putting us the top suspect for gaming the system. This is not acceptable, and admittedly, it makes me emotionally unhappy, David is making a policy proposal to try to improve certain aspect of IP pool management for the whole APNIC community and it is now implied that he is part of a rigged policy making process. This clearly is not good for us or for anyone else. I had words with APNIC staff shortly after the session closed, and got further accusations to be part of gaming the system, which further aggravated me, now the accusation was direct. While I point out that the amount of people supporting the policy wasn’t just 3 or 4 in the room, one of APNIC Staff said direct to my face that he does not believe me, as I was lying, while I suggesting we can go to the hallway and confront people who ware just supported the policy during the process to future confirm the actually number of support, to check the fact of each of our claim. he simply asked me to get out of his face, literally, “get out of my face”. As a member of this community and regular attendee to the meetings, I will have to say the behavior of staff was less than acceptable, accusations thrown in like this must be backed up or you just destroy someone's reputation without any proof! If the system was being gamed, it must be announced in a manner that put no one in doubt. If the system was simply less than perfect, works not as intended, it should simply be announced as a trial run and we need to fix the system. In any case, accusation that serious, or even doubt that serious(as Adam was ask me directly if I gamed the system), need to be backed with hard solicit evidence. Both as company and individual, we value our reputation in the community dearly, we are trying to contribute to the community not in our own interest, but in the interest of many, before we proposed the policy, we have discussed it with many members of APNIC, friends in the community, that many of them think it is a good path to move forward with. While waiting for the solicit evidence the system was gamed to absolutely clear our name and reputation, I would like ask APNIC being future careful in implementing such less than perfect system for such sensitive discussion.

7 8

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

31 Mar '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

prop-116 returned to mailing list
by Sumon Ahmed Sabir 16 Mar '17

16 Mar '17

Dear colleagues, Version 3 of prop-116: "Prohibit to transfer IPv4 addresses in the final /8 block", did not reach consensus at the APNIC 43 Policy SIG and was returned to the mailing list for further discussion. Synopsis: ------------- This proposal helps to ensure the distribution of the 'Final /8' (103/8) block is consistent with its original purpose, for distribution for new entrants to the industry. Proposal details, including the full text of the proposal, history, and links to previous versions are available at: https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/proposals/prop-116/ Regards, Sumon, Ching-Heng, Bertrand Policy SIG Chairs

1 0

prop-118 returned to mailing list
by Sumon Ahmed Sabir 16 Mar '17

16 Mar '17

Dear colleagues, Version 1 of prop-118: "No need policy in APNIC region", did not reach consensus at the APNIC 43 Policy SIG and was returned to the mailing list for further discussion. Synopsis: ------------- Simplify transfer of IPv4 space between resource holders. Ease some administration on APNIC staff. Proposal details, including the full text of the proposal, history, and links to previous versions are available at: https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/proposals/prop-118/ Regards, Sumon, Ching-Heng, Bertrand Policy SIG Chairs

1 0

Re: [sig-policy] prop-118-v001: No need policy in APNIC region
by David Hilario 02 Mar '17

02 Mar '17

Dear all, The policy proposal was referred to the next APNIC meeting due to lack of support from the community, the show of hands in support and opposition in the room was in the low count. I would like to ask any remote participant on the list interested about this proposal who have not yet to come forward to please do so and show your support or opposition. Confer software was showing a large disproportionate support compared to the support in the room. During the session it was mention that people were "gaming the conf software", which is not acceptable. I therefore ask for 2 things from APNIC secretariat 1. APNIC secretariat please release any supporting information about the suspicion of system gaming, this is a very severe accusation against the APNIC community at large, denouncing whoever was behind that should be done. 2. Did other proposal get affected in the same manner? David Hilario *IP Manager* *Larus Cloud Service Limited* p: +852 29888918 <+852%202988%208918> m: +359 89 764 1784 <+359%2089%20764%201784> f: +852 29888068 <+852%202988%208068> a: Flat B5, 11/F, TML Tower, No.3 Hoi Shing Road, Tsuen Wan, HKSAR w: laruscloudservice.net/uk e: d.hilario(a)laruscloudservice.net <d.hilario(a)outsideheaven.com> On 1 March 2017 at 06:05, David Hilario <d.hilario(a)outsideheaven.com> wrote: > > Hi Hiroki, > > The recipient receiving the address space will be under the APNIC policies > in place, which mean they should be using the address space to number their > network or their customers network. > > So the received space is for them to use for their own network or > customers. > > > > David Hilario > > *IP Manager* > > *Larus Cloud Service Limited* > > p: +852 29888918 <+852%202988%208918> m: +359 89 764 1784 > <+359%2089%20764%201784> > f: +852 29888068 <+852%202988%208068> > a: Flat B5, 11/F, TML Tower, No.3 Hoi Shing Road, Tsuen Wan, HKSAR > w: laruscloudservice.net/uk > e: d.hilario(a)outsideheaven.com > > > On 1 March 2017 at 04:27, Hiroki Kawabata <kawabata(a)nic.ad.jp> wrote: > >> Dear David, >> >> We support this proposal in general but we'd like to confirm about your >> proposal. >> >> Under the current transfer policy, we understand transferred address >> space are to be used >> by the recipient of the transfer, and not for re-sale purpose without use >> by the recipient. >> >> Please let me confirm that this remains unchanged under this policy >> proposal, >> i.e., the transfer policy is *not* for re-sale. >> >> Regards, >> Hiroki >> >> --- >> Hiroki Kawabata(kawabata(a)nic.ad.jp) >> Hostmaster, IP Address Department >> Japan Network Information Center(JPNIC) >> >> >> Subject: [sig-policy] prop-118-v001: No need policy in APNIC region >> From: Sumon Ahmed Sabir <sumon(a)fiberathome.net> >> Date: Tue Jan 31 2017 19:44:58 GMT+0900 >> >> 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 >>> ------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> >>> >>> * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy >>> * >>> _______________________________________________ >>> sig-policy mailing list >>> sig-policy(a)lists.apnic.net >>> https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy >>> >>> * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy >> * >> _______________________________________________ >> sig-policy mailing list >> sig-policy(a)lists.apnic.net >> https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy >> > >

2 2

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

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

sig-policy March 2017