Dear Guangliang,

It is a question for clarification. How often is this policy used recently? (even though I guess it is quite few.)

Rgs, Masato YAMANISHI Softbank BB Corp.

-----Original Message----- From: sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net [mailto:sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net] On Behalf Of Randy Bush Sent: Friday, January 29, 2010 5:05 PM To: Policy SIG Subject: [sig-policy] prop-080: Removal of IPv4 prefix exchange policy

Dear SIG members,

The proposal, 'Removal of IPv4 prefix exchange policy', has been sent to the Policy SIG for review. It will be presented at the Policy SIG at APNIC 29 in Kuala Lumpur, 1-5 March 2010.

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 and other policy proposals is available from:

    http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals

Randy, Ching-Heng, and Terence

prop-080-v001: Removal of IPv4 prefix exchange policy ______________________________________________________________ __________

Authors: Guangliang Pan gpan@apnic.net

Version: 1

Date: 29 January 2010

1. Introduction

This is a proposal to remove the policy that currently permits resource holders to return three or more noncontiguous IPv4 address blocks and have the prefixes replaced with a single, larger, contiguous block.

1. Summary of current problem

Current APNIC policy[1] permits organizations to exchange three or more IPv4 prefixes and receive a single portable CIDR range of equal length or one bit shorter.

Such exchanges may be requested without the requirement to document the efficiency of existing assignments and the usage rates.

At the time this policy was introduced, it served a good purpose: it aimed to encourage return of noncontiguous small historical blocks to help reduce the size of the global routing table.

However, as the remaining unallocated IPv4 addresses continue to be depleted, it will become increasingly difficult for APNIC to fulfil requests made under this prefix exchange policy.

1. Situation in other RIRs

ARIN has two policies related to exchanging noncontiguous prefixes. For more information, see section 4.6, "Amnesty and Aggregation Requests" and section 4.7, "Aggregation Requests" in the ARIN Number Resource Policy Manual at:

 https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html

AfriNIC, LACNIC and RIPE have no similar prefix exchange policies.

1. Details of the proposal

It is proposed that APNIC remove the policy that enables networks to exchange noncontiguous address blocks in exchange for a single, aggregated range.

1. Advantages and disadvantages of the proposal

5.1 Advantages

 - It removes a policy responsibility that APNIC will not able to
   fulfil during the IPv4 exhaustion period.

 - It prevents organizations taking advantage of the 

exchange policy to obtain more IPv4 addresses from APNIC by rounding up to the next bit without justification of the need.

   This is of particular concern as the remaining unallocated IPv4
   pool becomes smaller.

5.2 Disadvantages

 - It prevents organizations willing to renumber and aggregate
   address blocks from being able to do so. However, given the
   fragmentation of the global routing table for other 

reasons during the IPv4 address exhaustion period, this is a minor disadvantage, that will have very little adverse impact on the size of the global routing table.

1. Effect on APNIC members

This proposal will prevent APNIC members from exchanging noncontiguous prefixes for a single prefix. However, as noted in the "Disadvantages" section above, this inability to aggregate routes is not likely to have a significant impact on the size of the global routing table during the IPv4 address exhaustion period.

1. Effect on NIRs

NIR members will also be prevented from exchanging noncontiguous prefixes for a single prefix.

1. References

[1] See:

    Section 11.4, "Renumbering to promote aggregation" in 

"Policies for IPv4 address space management in the Asia Pacific region", http://www.apnic.net/policy/add-manage-policy

    Section 7, "Historical prefix exchange policy" in 

"Policies for historical Internet resources in the APNIC Whois Database", http://www.apnic.net/policy/historical-resource-policies

•          sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management 
  

policy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy