[apnic-talk] APNIC Address Policy SIG
Attached below is a draft paper in preparation for the upcoming
Address Policy SIG at the APNIC meeting. This paper will shortly be
available on the APNIC meeting web site, along with all other meeting
documents at:
http://www.apnic.net/meetings
Comments and discussion on this list are very welcome.
Regards,
Anne
Manager, Member Services
APNIC
_____________________________________________________________________
DRAFT
Problem Definition
A proposal for an amended PI assignment policy
1. Motivation
APNIC is frequently approached by organisations stating that they require
an assignment of provider independent (PI) address space. The reasons most
frequently cited include lack of IP address space available from upstream
providers; plans to multihome; and a perception that PI space will provide
redundancy and resilience for their site.
APNIC currently makes PI assignments to end users in one of two ways:
- Through the non-member assignment policy, which is open to any
applicant (and involves a one-time fee payment of US$8,192).
- Through a request submitted by a current APNIC member on behalf of
the applicant (in which case there is no direct charge to the member or
applicant; however, any PI address space assigned is added to the
member's total pool of address space from which membership categories
are calculated). This is an informal policy.
Clearly there is a significant inconsistency between these two mechanisms
for dealing with PI requests. So, in February 2000, at the APNIC meeting in
Korea, APNIC presented the need for a clearer policy framework for this
issue (http://www.apnic.net/amm2000/sigs/present/PI-assignments/index.htm).
At that time there was no specific input from the community, but there was
consensus that a change in policy was needed. Therefore, this proposal is
submitted for discussion at the October meeting in Brisbane.
2. Background
CIDR promotes a hierarchical routing structure through provider
aggregatable (PA) assignments to end-sites, which reduces pressure on the
global routing table size.
Excessive use of PI assignments where providers are asked to announce and
route prefixes from outside their own PA allocated ranges has the opposite
effect, increasing the size of the global routing table.
More than 50% of today's routing table comprises /24 announcements and,
contrary to expectation, this percentage appears to be increasing not
decreasing. Currently, there are more than 50,000 /24 routes in the routing
table compared to 5,840 /19s and 3,575 /20s.
Furthermore, in recent months, the rate of growth in the size of the
routing table has increased. The number of entries has increased from
73,648 in February 2000 to 87,480 during September 2000. By comparison, in
October 1999, the routing table held 64,019 prefixes (source: Philip Smith
BGP Routing Analysis at http://www.apnic.net/stats/bgp and Tony Bates' CIDR
report). These figures represent a 36% increase in one year.
It is clearly the ISPs who determine what to route and how they choose to
it. Allocation and assignment policies are not the only determinant of
these routing statistics, but they do have a significant impact.
The response from APNIC members in 1997 was to recommend the non-member PI
assignment policy be priced sufficiently high as to discourage applications.
Since the time of that decision, policy b) has been introduced, borrowed
largely from the RIPE NCC.
3. Current status - RIR Policies
APNIC
As above. A member can request a PI assignment on behalf of a customer. The
organisation must give a technical reason for the request, such as multihoming.
Alternatively, an organisation can request a PI assignment directly from
APNIC once they have paid the non-member fee of US$8,192.
RIPE NCC
RIPE NCC only makes PI assignments through members on behalf of customers.
The requesting organisation must give specific reasons to the member
explaining why PI is required. There is no minimum assignment size and no
cost to the member or end-user.
More information about this policy is available at
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-185.html
ARIN
The requesting organisation can apply to ARIN directly. The organisation
must be multihomed and should have already efficiently utilised a /21 and
demonstrate the need for /20 to be used within 3 months. The requesting
organisation must agree to renumber from prior address space. No
sub-assignments are permitted.
It is worth noting here that these conditions are very similar to the
conditions imposed on ARIN members in order to qualify for an allocation
directly from ARIN. An allocation to members is effectively a portable
address block that will appear in the global routing table, as will the PI
assignment under this policy.
ARIN has also defined exceptions to the policy in that they make
assignments to "essential infrastructure", classified as gTLDs, ccTLDs,
RIRs, and ICANN. Assignments are also made for exchange point
infrastructure. However, in these exceptional cases, the assignment comes
with terms and conditions, and must not be publicly routed on the Internet.
ARIN makes no PI assignments smaller than a /24.
All PI assignments attract a fee and recipients are required to sign a
'Registration Services Agreement'
More information on ARIN policies is available at
http://www.arin.net/regserv/ip-assignment.html
4. Discussion and recommendations
This issue requires consideration on technical, administrative, and
financial grounds.
4.1 Technical considerations
i) Does the size of site matter? If yes,
- Should PI assignments be available for end-user sites which are
sufficiently large?
- If yes, what size should be considered large enough?
APNIC proposes that PI assignments should be available, but in order to
discourage growth in the /24 range, end-sites should be sufficiently large.
"Sufficiently large" is defined as sites that having utilised a /21 from
their upstream ISP or be able to demonstrate that they plan to use a /21
immediately (up to 3 months).
It is proposed that the "minimum" assignment should be related to APNIC's
"minimum allocation". In routing terms, there is no practical difference
between a /20 assignment and a /20 allocation. Therefore sites that qualify
under this policy should be able to demonstrate utilisation of a /20 in a year.
ii) Does the type of connectivity matter?
- Should it be mandatory that the organisation is multihomed and running
BGP to at least two different upstream ISPs?
APNIC proposes that organisations must be multihomed or plan to multihome
within 3 months in order to qualify for a PI assignment. Singly-homed
organisations should use address space from their upstream ISP.
Organisations that are multihomed will inject prefixes into the global
routing tables.
4.2 Administrative considerations
Currently, in the case of non-member resource assignments, there is no
formal relationship or contract with APNIC, with the result that it is
impossible to apply changes in resource management policies to historical
assignments.
Furthermore, although APNIC has no formal link to the requesting
organisation, APNIC is still required to provide services to them free of
charge in the form of in-addr.arpa service and whois maintenance.
It is therefore recommended that the informal procedures of requesting PI
address space through members is discontinued and that APNIC establishes a
direct contractual relationship with end-users who request PI assignments.
4.3 Financial considerations
It is proposed that requesting organisations are charged a fee consistent
with APNIC's existing fee structure, which has a minimum fee US$2,500 and
an administration fee of US$1,000. However, under APNIC's taxation
arrangements, fees from organisations that are not APNIC members are
treated as taxable company income. Therefore, the non-member fee should
include provision for taxation, which is estimated at 34%. A maintenance
fee of 10% of the annual fee will also be charged.
In summary, the proposed fees are as follows:
Amount of address space Fee
Up to and including a /19 US$2,500 + 34%
Greater than a /19 and including a /16 US$5,000 + 34%
Greater than a /16 US$10,000 + 34%
An administration fee of US$1,000 will be applied to all categories.
GST of +10% is charged for AU requestors.
All assignments will be subject to a 10% maintenance fee.
5. Recommendations
APNIC is seeking feedback from the community in the development of a more
consistent and equitable framework to address these issues.
Based on the issues discussed in this paper, and drawing on the policy
developed by ARIN, APNIC proposes that in order to receive a PI assignment,
an organisation must meet all of the following criteria:
- to receive a PI assignment an organisation must be multihomed or
have plans to multihome within 3 months
- the PI assignment should not be further assigned to other
organisations if they are not administratively related to that
organisation. Furthermore, there is a requirement that the assignment
will be routed as one aggregate
- the requesting organisation must have used a /21 from its upstream
provider or, if not yet multihomed, plan to use a /21 and demonstrate a
detailed plan to multihome within 3 months
- the minimum assignment size is /20 (the address space will be
assigned from 202/7)
- a maintenance fee of 10% of the assignment fee will be payable each
year
6. Implementation Proposal
6.1 Implementation date
It is proposed that APNIC implement a new policy 3 months after consensus
has been reached. At that time, the existing 'non-member' IP address
assignment procedures, both formal and informal, will be deprecated.
All necessary supporting documents will be prepared by APNIC before the
implementation date. These will include a PI contract and a fee structure
document. The existing 'end-user' address request form will be reviewed and
modified accordingly. Every effort will be made to inform the community of
the changes in advance of the changeover date through the APNIC web site
and related mailing lists.
6.2 NIRs
There is an expectation that NIRs will implement the criteria for
multihomed assignments outlined in this policy proposal. However, as only
APNIC is authorised to make PI assignments from the APNIC address ranges
(see section 7.12.1 of the APNIC policy document 'Policies for address
space management in the Asia Pacific region'), NIRs will forward approved
requests to APNIC for actual assignment from the 202/7 address ranges. It
is expected that where NIRs offer this service contractual relationships
will be established between the NIR and the requesting organisation.
* APNIC-TALK: General APNIC Discussion List *
* To unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe" to apnic-talk-request at apnic dot net *