sig-policy August 2017

sig-policy@lists.apnic.net

15 participants
13 discussions

New proposal prop-121: Updating "InitialIPv6 allocation"
by chku 14 Sep '17

14 Sep '17

Dear SIG members The proposal "prop-121: Updating “Initial IPv6 allocation” policy" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review. It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting at APNIC 44 which will be held in Taichung, Taiwan on Wednesday and Thursday, 14 & 15 September 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-121 Regards Sumon, Ching-Heng, Bertrand APNIC Policy SIG Chairs ------------------------------------------------------------------------ prop-121-v001: Updating “Initial IPv6 allocation” policy ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Proposer: Jordi Palet Martinez jordi.palet(a)consulintel.es Problem Statement ----------------- The actual policy text (9.2.2. Account holders without existing IPv4 space) is assuming that an LIR will have more than 200 customers over a period of 2 years, or it is already an IPv4 LIR. However, it is a perfectly valid possibility to have small LIRs, which may be never will have 200 customers, for example they may have a dozen of big enterprise customers, or they may be a new LIR, not having any IPv4 addresses (we all know the run-out problem) or may choose to use a limited number of IPv4 addresses from their upstream providers, because they don’t intend to provide IPv4 services. It is also possible that the LIR is planning for a longer term than just 2 years, for example a government with a national network which may take a longer period to deploy, connecting all kind of institutions at different levels (ministries, schools, health centres, municipalities, other public institutions, etc.). Objective of policy change -------------------------- To make sure that the policy is aligned with a wider set of possible IPv6 deployment cases, including those indicated in the previous section and facilitate the justification of the allocation/assignment size if a bigger address block (versus the default one) is requested. Situation in other regions -------------------------- This situation, concretely in the case of big initial IPv6 allocations to governments, has already occurred in RIPE, and the policy was updated to be able to make those allocations. In some cases, a few governments got delayed their deployments several years because the lack of an appropriate policy covering their case. Proposed policy solution ------------------------ Change some of the actual text as follows. Actual text: 9.2.2. Account holders without existing IPv4 space To qualify for an initial allocation of IPv6 address space, an organization must: 1. Be an LIR 2. Not be an end site 3. Plan to provide IPv6 connectivity to organizations to which it will make assignments. 4. Meet one of the two following criteria: - Have a plan for making at least 200 assignments to other organizations within two years, or - Be an existing LIR with IPv4 allocations from APNIC or an NIR, which will make IPv6 assignments or sub-allocations to other organizations and announce the allocation in the inter- domain routing system within two years. Private networks (those not connected to the public Internet) may also be eligible for an IPv6 address space allocation provided they meet equivalent criteria to those listed above. New text: 9.2.2. Account holders without existing IPv4 space To qualify for an initial allocation of IPv6 address space, an organization must: 1. Be an LIR 2. Not be an end site 3. Plan, within two years, to provide IPv6 connectivity to other organizations/end-users to which it will make assignments. The allocation size, in case an address block bigger than the default one (as indicated in 9.2.1.) is requested, will be based on the number of users, the extent of the organisation's infrastructure, the hierarchical and geographical structuring of the organisation, the segmentation of infrastructure for security and the planned longevity of the allocation. Private networks (those not connected to the public Internet) may also be eligible for an IPv6 address space allocation provided they meet equivalent criteria to those listed above. Advantages of the proposal -------------------------- Fulfilling the objective above indicated, so allowing a more realistic alignment of the policy text with market reality under the IPv4 exhaustion situation. Disadvantages of the proposal ----------------------------- Possible abuse of the policy, which may be done equally creating new LIRs, and it is expected that the evaluation process of a request from APNIC will avoid it. Impact on resource holders -------------------------- None. References ---------- Links to the RIPE and LACNIC texts on request. _______________________________________________ Sig-policy-chair mailing list Sig-policy-chair(a)apnic.net https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy-chair

4 8

prop-119: Temporary transfers, to be discussed at APNIC 44 Polic y SIG
by chku 13 Sep '17

13 Sep '17

Dear SIG members The proposal "prop-119: Temporary transfers" was sent to the Policy SIG Mailing list in May 2017. It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting at APNIC 44 which will be held in Taichung, Taiwan on Wednesday and Thursday, 14 & 15 September 2017. Information about the proposal is available from: http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-119 You are encouraged to express your views on the proposal: - Do you support or oppose the proposal? - 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? Please find the text of the proposal below. Kind Regards, Sumon, Ching-Heng, Bertrand APNIC Policy SIG Chairs ------------------------------------------------------------------------ prop-119-v001: Temporary transfers ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Proposer: David Hilario d.hilario(a)laruscloudservice.net 1. Problem statement ------------------------------------------------------------------------ It is currently not possible for an organisation to receive a temporary transfer under the current policy framework. Some organisations do not want to have address space registered as assignments or sub-allocations, but would rather have the address space registered as "ALLOCATED PA". 2. Objective of policy change ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Create a possibility for temporary transfers that would allow organisations to have resources directly registered under them while they are the custodians of these resources on the Internet. While also guaranteeing that the offering party will under the APNIC policy be able to recover the resources once the “lease” time has expired unless specifically renewed. 3. Situation in other regions ------------------------------------------------------------------------ RIPE region has a concept of temporary transfers in their policies. This concept is not found in the other RIRs for the moment. 4. Proposed policy solution ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Adding to section "8.2.1. Conditions on the space to be transferred" the following paragraphs: It must be specified if the transfer is a permanent or temporary transfer. A temporary transfer must have an end date, upon the end date the resources will be transferred back to the same origin account or its successor in the event of merger and acquisitions, unless the transfer is specifically prolonged and confirmed by both parties. If the source account does no longer exist and has no successor, the space will then be returned to the origin RIR for the space. Temporary transfers cannot be further transferred. 5. Advantages / Disadvantages ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Advantages: Gives a greater flexibility in how LIRs manage and distribute their free pool. Enables organisation to receive address space in the way they intend. Disadvantages: These transfers would be treated and appear as regular transfers, only APNIC the offering and receiving party will be aware of their temporary nature. Organisations receiving such space, if they further assign it, must make be ready to renumber/revoke space from their customers and services then the lease expires, this is no different than a sub-allocation and implies the same limitations. 6. Impact on resource holders ------------------------------------------------------------------------ none 7. References ------------- _______________________________________________ Sig-policy-chair mailing list Sig-policy-chair(a)apnic.net https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy-chair

8 11

Re: [sig-policy] prop-119: Temporary transfers, to be discussed at APNIC 44 Polic y SIG
by Aftab Siddiqui 13 Sep '17

13 Sep '17

> It is already a possibility in the RIPE region to do such transfers. > > And? > It is really to cover a corner case where organisations are not able > or interested in receiving the IP space in form of assignments or > sub-allocations, but need them to be part of their own registry for > full control of the space and only for a pre-set amount of time. > Solution is simple, if the organization is not interested in receiving the resources as assignments and sub-allocations then just buy it. What is full control? creation of route-objects? or anything which can't be done by sending an email to helpdesk(a)apnic.net? > I do not believe that spammer would benefit from this policy as they > would have to register with APNIC as members and provide all the > needed paperwork such as company registration papers, ID/passports, > billing address etc... > It will definitely support the spammers by all means. You temperorary transfer resource to Spammer, they do their thing and get black listed everywhere and then you get the resources back and ask everyone that we are the new owner of this resource so kindly remove all the listing. REPEAT. > They are much better off renting a /24 from the black market with no > traces or documented changes ion the address block. > Yup, let them pay black market rates for black market business model. And what will be the temporary transfer fees? same as permanent transfer fees? or free? In order to resolve a corner case it will open up opertunities for spammers. I stronly oppose it. -- Best Wishes, Aftab A. Siddiqui

5 7

[Sig-policy] New version of prop-116: Prohibit to transfer IPv4 addresses in the final /8 block
by chku 12 Sep '17

12 Sep '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. It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting at APNIC 44 which will be held in Taichung, Taiwan on Wednesday and Thursday, 14 & 15 September 2017. 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? - 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? Please find the text of the proposal below. Kind Regards, Sumon, Bertrand, Ching-Heng APNIC Policy SIG Chairs ------------------------------------------------------- prop-116-v004: 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 | | 2017 | 45 | 178 | +------+-----------+------------+- 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 | | 2017 | 70 | 288 | +------+-----------+-----------+ 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. This two years requirement will apply both market and M&A transfers. 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 ------------- _______________________________________________ Sig-policy-chair mailing list Sig-policy-chair(a)apnic.net https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy-chair

8 7

New proposal prop-122-v001: Updating "Subsequent IPv6 allocation " policy
by chku 09 Sep '17

09 Sep '17

Dear SIG members The proposal "prop-122-v001: Updating "Subsequent IPv6 allocation" policy. " has been sent to the Policy SIG for review. It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting at APNIC 44 which will be held in Taichung, Taiwan on Wednesday and Thursday, 14 & 15 September 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-122 Regards Sumon, Ching-Heng, Bertrand APNIC Policy SIG Chairs ------------------------------------------------------------------------ prop-122-v001: Updating “Subsequent IPv6 allocation” policy ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Proposer: Jordi Palet Martinez jordi.palet(a)consulintel.es Problem Statement ----------------- If we reach consensus on the Updating "Initial IPv6 allocation" policy, it is necessary to align the text of the subsequent allocations, in order to be coherent and not discriminate LIRs with existing allocations. If consensus on that policy proposal is not reached, this proposal also allows LIRs with existing allocations a better justification of their new needs and not limited to a 2 years period. The actual policy text (9.3.4. Size of subsequent allocation) is assuming that an LIR will need just doubling his actual block, and then states the possibility of more space providing the relevant documentation. However, it is limiting that to a two-years period. Objective of policy change -------------------------- To make sure that the subsequent IPv6 allocation policy is synchronized with the initial allocation one. Situation in other regions -------------------------- Both RIPE and LACNIC have approved equivalent changes. Proposed policy solution ------------------------ Change some of the actual text as follows. Actual text: 9.3.4. Size of subsequent allocation When an organization has achieved an acceptable utilization for its allocated address space, it is immediately eligible to obtain an additional allocation that results in a doubling of the address space allocated to it. Where possible, except where separate disaggregated ranges are requested for multiple discrete networks, the allocation will be made from an adjacent address block, meaning that its existing allocation is extended by one bit to the left. If an organization needs more address space, it must provide documentation justifying its requirements for a two-year period. The allocation made will be based on this requirement. New text: 9.3.4. Size of subsequent allocation When an organization has achieved an acceptable utilization for its allocated address space, it is immediately eligible to obtain an additional allocation that results in a doubling of the address space allocated to it. Where possible, except where separate disaggregated ranges are requested for multiple discrete networks, the allocation will be made from an adjacent address block, meaning that its existing allocation is extended by one bit to the left. If an organization needs more address space, it must provide documentation justifying its new requirements. The allocation size, will be based on the new needs (the number of users, the extent of the organisation's infrastructure, the hierarchical and geographical structuring of the organisation, the segmentation of infrastructure for security and the planned longevity of the allocation). Advantages of the proposal -------------------------- Fulfilling the objective above indicated. Disadvantages of the proposal ----------------------------- Possible abuse of the policy, which may be done equally creating new LIRs, and it is expected that the evaluation process of a request from APNIC will avoid it. Impact on resource holders -------------------------- None. References ---------- Links to the RIPE and LACNIC texts on request. _______________________________________________ Sig-policy-chair mailing list Sig-policy-chair(a)apnic.net https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy-chair

4 3

[Sig-policy] prop-118: No need policy in APNIC region, to be dis cussed at APNIC 44 Policy SIG
by chku 08 Sep '17

08 Sep '17

Dear SIG members The proposal "prop-118: No need policy in APNIC region" was discussed at APNIC 43 Policy SIG, but did not reach consensus. It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting at APNIC 44 which will be held in Taichung, Taiwan on Wednesday and Thursday, 14 & 15 September 2017. Information about the proposal is available from: http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-118 You are encouraged to express your views on the proposal: - Do you support or oppose the proposal? - 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? Please find the text of the proposal below. Kind Regards, Sumon, Bertrand, Ching-Heng 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-chair mailing list Sig-policy-chair(a)apnic.net https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy-chair

8 15

New proposal prop-120: Final /8 pool exhaustion plan
by chku 08 Sep '17

08 Sep '17

Dear SIG members The proposal "prop-120: Final /8 pool exhaustion plan" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review. It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting at APNIC 44 which will be held in Taichung, Taiwan on Wednesday and Thursday, 14 & 15 September 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? - 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-120 Regards Sumon, Bertrand, Ching-Heng APNIC Policy SIG Chairs ------------------------------------------------------- prop-120-v001: Final /8 pool exhaustion plan ------------------------------------------------------- Proposer: Tomohiro Fujisaki fujisaki(a)syce.net 1. Problem statement -------------------- APNIC makes IPv4 address delegation from two IPv4 pools. These are the 103/8 (Final /8) pool and the non-103/8 IPv4 Recovered pool. Currently, there are no IPv4 addresses in the non-103/8 IPv4 Recovered pool and APNIC manages a Recovered Pool Waiting List for approved requests. And, based on the Geoff's projection (*1), the 103/8 (Final /8) pool will be exhausted in a few years. It will be necessary to make a guidance about how to manage the IPv4 delegation after both IPv4 pools exhaustion. 2. Objective of policy change ----------------------------- To provide a guidance for 103/8 pool exhaustion. 3. Situation in other regions ----------------------------- None. 4. Proposed policy solution --------------------------- Guidance for 103/8 pool exhaustion: - 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 /21 from the IPv4 Recovered pool. - Existing account holders who have not yet received the maximum /21 from the two pools may continue to apply for space from the Recovered pool until they have received a maximum /21 from the two pools. - 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: - Possible to avoid confusion at 103/8 address pool exhaustion date Disadvantages: None. 6. Impact on resource holders ------------------------------ No impact to resource holders. 7. References ------------- 1. IPv4 Address Report http://www.potaroo.net/tools/ipv4/ _______________________________________________ Sig-policy-chair mailing list Sig-policy-chair(a)apnic.net https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy-chair

3 2

Re: [sig-policy] prop-119: Temporary transfers, to be discussed at APNIC 44 Polic y SIG
by David Huberman 04 Sep '17

04 Sep '17

Hello, I oppose this proposal as written. I do not believe this policy proposal benefits network operations. I believe it is intended to further the goals of the policy proposer and the company he owns/works at, which exists to earn money from the sale and leasing of IP address blocks (per their website). If the policy proposal has shed light on some deficiencies in the Membership Agreement (found at: https://www.apnic.net/about-apnic/corporate-documents/documents/membership/… <https://www.apnic.net/about-apnic/corporate-documents/documents/membership/…> ), then I suggest it would be helpful for the policy proposer to work with APNIC staff and/or the EC, rather than through the Policy SIG. Thank you, David David Huberman | Principal Program Manager Oracle Cloud 1501 4th Ave #1800 Seattle, WA 98101 USA

4 7

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

31 Aug '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

SAFNOG-3: Agenda Finalized
by Mark Tinka 31 Aug '17

31 Aug '17

Hello all. Pleased to inform you that the SAFNOG-3 agenda is now full! You can view the agenda here: http://safnog.org/ We have a very detailed and exciting line-up, sure to appeal to different parts of our community, such as: - Data Centres. - Peering. - IPv4 Address exhaustion. - SDN/NFV. - FTTH. - Cloud Computing. - IPv6. - Internet Security. - DNS. - BGP. - e.t.c. We also have two very powerful keynote speakers delivering critical and vital information at this year's meeting: - Our opening keynote will be presented by Mr. Pascal Hoba, CEO of UbuntuNet Alliance. - Our closing keynote will be presented by Mr. Alan Barrett, CEO of AFRINIC. Bio information about all of this year's speakers will be available in the coming days. Please check the web site regularly for these updates. Please register your attendance for SAFNOG-3, if you have not yet done so. We look forward to seeing you all in Durban, next week! Cheers, Mark Tinka On Behalf of the SAFNOG Management Committee

1 0

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

sig-policy August 2017