[apnic-talk] APNIC Address Policy SIG

  • To: apnic-talk at lists dot apnic dot net
  • Subject: [apnic-talk] APNIC Address Policy SIG
  • From: Anne Lord <anne at apnic dot net>
  • Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 09:07:49 +1000 (EST)
  • Sender: owner-apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net
      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:
      Comments and discussion on this list are very welcome.
      Manager, Member Services
      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
      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 
      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 
      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 
      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 
      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 *