On Tuesday, August 30, 2011 10:26:59 AM Andy Linton wrote:
I said yesterday that a revised version of the proposal
was being worked on. Can we keep our discussions to this
version please?
Thanks, Andy.
I'll take a slightly different angle...
For the implementation of the above policy decisions many
discussions were held with service providers and
organizations in which they were of the opinion that
there should be proper address planning for different
organizations within the economy. So taking cue from
this, Government of India (Department of
Telecommunications) set up a committee for formulation
of a National IPv6 address policy.
I do find it interesting that the government are taking an
interest in the address planning habits of the service
providers.
In the 2nd meeting of the committee held on 18th July
2011 in New Delhi, members were of the opinion that
India as a whole should request for the reservation of a
suitably-sized block of IPv6 addresses from APNIC. This
block can be allocated to different organizations by
keeping in view the long term planning perspective.
So it was decided that this issue should be taken up with
APNIC. As this was a policy related issue, and other
economies in the APNIC region may also have similar
needs, therefore, the proposal was put up to APNIC for
address block reservation at the economy level for
subsequent allocation to different organizations within
the economies in the APNIC region.
Okay.
(a) Contiguous address block allocation is not
ensured by APNIC when an organization goes back to APNIC
for further allocation (reapplying after more than one
year)
(b) Non provision of address space for future
organizations in economies who are not in a position (or
not aware) to ask for addresses at present.
APNIC policy does not currently allow address blocks to
be allocated at the economy level, so through this
proposal, we are seeking a change in the policy for
reservation of adequate IPv6 address space economy wise
for further allocation to different organizations and
stakeholders within the economy.
I still think that this is a need that can be satisfied at
the NIR level.
- Situation in other RIRs
No other RIRs presently have a program to assess the
needs of individual economies in their region and
reserve appropriately-sized address blocks. However,
economies in other RIRs may have similar needs and a
similar program of assessment may be appropriate.
I think that resource needs assessment is a task handled
best by the operators at the micro level (which includes
address planning), and respective governments at the macro
level.
I fear that if APNIC got involved in assessing the needs of
every individual economy in the Asia Pacific region, it
would be substantially administrative. Would the data
gathered be useful? Certainly. But keeping it up-to-date
(not the mention the process of gathering and confirming
it), I think, should not be the burden of an RIR. That's
what operators and special interest groups at the government
and private sector level tend to normally do.
- Details
In the current policy framework of APNIC, addresses are
allocated to different organizations in different
economies when they are able to demonstrate their need
for those addresses and they apply for them. However, in
this process two requirements, mentioned in summary
above, are not taken into consideration. In the era of
IPv4, when the addresses were in severe shortage, such a
demonstrated need policy was relevant but in the era of
IPv6 it is not.
I'm with Randy when I say that we once thought 32-bits for
IPv4 was more than enough. History has always been a good
teacher, but I digress...
Given the current minimum allocations for IPv6, and the
opportunities for LIR's/NIR's to indicate how much address
space they really need for their operations/members, I find
the current needs-based policy still suitable for IPv6; more
so because it can be used to extend just about the right
amount of IPv6 address space to an NIR that it thinks
members in its community would sufficiently need for a given
time period.
IPv6 addresses are in abundance and their planning and
distribution is also at a very nascent stage. The main
objective of this proposal is to ensure that all
economies (and the different present and future
organizations in those economies) can ensure they will
get a suitable share of the IPv6 address space, in one
or more large contiguous blocks, whether they need it
now or at a later date. This will also help different
organizations in different economies to plan their
networks in a more effective manner as they will have a
reasonably fair idea of the IPv6 address space
allocation in future.
It is not always guaranteed that APNIC or an NIR will always
allocate from a contiguous block. Fragmentation will always
be likely as take-up increases, although, I'm sure, better
algorithms at the NIR or RIR level would be welcome.
(A) Analysis and Projection of Requirements
Each economy in the APNIC region is different in terms of
population, population growth rate, GDP growth rate,
mobile, internet and broadband penetration growth rate,
social requirements etc. There could be many other
factors, which could be taken into consideration. These
factors would help to make an aggregate estimate of the
present and future IPv6 address requirements of all
organizations and stakeholders in each economy. The
analysis of each economy in the APNIC region could be
conducted in one of the following ways -
- By APNIC, since it has more experience across
different economies and different RIRs.
I still think that trying to get APNIC to do this work is
simply outside of scope. Yes, APNIC - as to other RIR's - do
go around conducting IPv6 awareness and training, but it
would be wise not to confuse this programme with that of
country-level address requirement projections.
- Alternatively, a representative body in each economy,
which could be the government of that economy or a
prominent industry association or any other recognised
body, may be approached by APNIC for estimating the
needs of that economy. However, in this case APNIC may
need to\ conduct awareness programmes for their
education and sufficient time is also required for
making such estimation.
Sounds a lot like an NIR to me.
- Any other suitable mechanism deemed fit by APNIC for
doing such estimation.
Given how fragile the data would be, not to mention how
"open to interpretation" it might end up becoming, it is
very easy for APNIC to miss the mark, and either over-do or
under-do.
When LIR's or NIR's go to request address space from APNIC,
there is little or no ambiguity in the amount of address
space that is needed. I think this is a quality that would
be much harder to implement when considerations at the
country level have to be made by APNIC.
I would say that NIR's working with APNIC on this would be
far more appropriate, if not accurate.
Through these analysis and projection estimates,
economy wise IPv6 address requirement (based on the
requirements of different organizations and
stakeholders) will emerge. This process will definitely
take some time.
I cannot speak for APNIC, but I'm not sure it's time they
have (as this kind of data is never static or easy to come
by when one considers true verification requirements). Of
course, I could certainly be wrong.
(B) Reservation of the IPv6 address space for different
economies (for their organizations and stakeholders) by
APNIC
Based on the above projections and estimates, APNIC may
keep one or more suitably sized blocks reserved for
different economies for ultimate use of organizations
and stakeholders of those economies. APNIC may also keep
some large blocks unreserved, i.e. not reserved for any
economy in the beginning, for any sudden unforeseen
requirements in future.
The allocation of addresses from these reserved blocks to
organizations and stakeholders in different economies
may be done directly by APNIC or through an NIR
(wherever existing) as it is doing at present.
Ultimately these addresses will be allocated to
individual organizations / stakeholders and not to the
economy. As an example, in case of India, after some
discussions with service providers, internet
associations and other stakeholders, an estimate of
current and future requirements of a /16 block,
initially, has been suggested. However, the firm
requirement has to be deliberated based upon a detailed
study as suggested above.
Detailed operational issues for implementing this policy,
if approved, will have to be deliberated upon
separately.
While I do not entirely support the idea of reservations
based on certain metrics that define an economy and its
needs, I would be open to an administrative arrangement
between APNIC and NIR based on the specific data that NIR
can provide to APNIC.
- Pros/Cons
Advantages:
- The various IPv6 awareness programmes for different
economies, the various studies for estimation of needs
of different economies and management of the reserved
IPv6 blocks as mentioned above will no doubt increase
the job of APNIC in the immediate future, but over a
long period of time, this would prove to be very
beneficial for IPv6 deployment and also make the job of
APNIC easier since APNIC would be very clear on what
future allocations it can make.
Yes, the amount of data that will be collected by APNIC
would be very useful. But I believe it would be a resource
duplication as operators, who are the actual folks on the
ground assigning addresses to customers and taking feedback
on what customers want for the future, already know this
information.
This information comes to APNIC during the (additional)
address application process, informally through policy or
operational mailing list discussions, and during meetings
such as APRICOT, APNIC, e.t.c. So the information is already
there - for APNIC to go and look for it again within all
economies in the Asia Pacific region, I think, is noble but
too administrative.
- The economies and their organizations will also
benefit since they will have a fair idea of what they
will get in future and they can plan accordingly for the
long term for IPv6 deployment.
There is the danger that new entrants in an economy that
received an allocation from APNIC are unhappy because a
smaller % of the existing ISP's ate up the majority of the
chunk that had previously been provided, assuming Prop-100
passed.
What I'm saying is that it's difficult to offer any
guarantees, especially as the policy becomes operational.
It's just as difficult at the regional level as it would be
at the national level.
A service provider's ability to detail their needs to APNIC
or an NIR is, I think, far more flexible and free of assumed
prejudice.
Disadvantages:
- There may be short term workload/financial
implications for APNIC for analysis and projection
studies, training and awareness etc. These however,
should not be a constraint because otherwise also APNIC
has to work for IPv6 awareness and its deployment in all
economies in APNIC region.
This, in my books, is a really huge disadvantage for the
amount of benefit gained; again, considering this data is
already available in some way or form.
I think a lot of the other disadvantages have already been
highlighted by some of the list members.
- Effect on APNIC
- It would prove to be very beneficial for IPv6
deployment and also make the job of APNIC easier since
APNIC would be very clear on what future allocations it
can make.
Again, I can't speak for APNIC, but I think this would be
too much work, especially if APNIC want to implement
controls to ensure fair play from both sides.
- Address allocation will be more organized and orderly.
This cannot be guaranteed. IPv4 as taught us that, despite
the vastness of IPv6.
- Effect on NIRs
NIRs can allocate IP addresses to individual members in
its geographical area from the reserved blocks as per
the actual projections of individual members.
This is what I support - APNIC allocates address space to an
NIR that will, then, deal with local members within the
constraints of a given economy.
However, I think it is feasible to assume that some members
may choose to bypass the NIR and apply for allocations
directly from APNIC. I think that's not all bad, provided
records are accurate.
Cheers,
Mark.