[sig-policy] prop-093-v002: Reducing the minimum delegation size for the

  • To: APNIC Policy SIG List <sig-policy at apnic dot net>
  • Subject: [sig-policy] prop-093-v002: Reducing the minimum delegation size for the final /8, policy
  • From: Gaurab Raj Upadhaya <gaurab at lahai dot com>
  • Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2011 09:16:51 +0000
  • Delivered-to: sig-policy at mailman dot apnic dot net
  • List-archive: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-policy>
  • List-help: <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=help>
  • List-id: APNIC SIG on resource management policy <sig-policy.lists.apnic.net>
  • List-post: <mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net>
  • List-subscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy>, <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=subscribe>
  • List-unsubscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy>, <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=unsubscribe>
  • User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv: Gecko/20101207 Thunderbird/3.1.7
    • Hash: SHA1
      Dear SIG members,
      Version 2 of the proposal, 'Reducing the minimum delegation size for
      the final /8 policy', has been sent to the Policy SIG for review. It
      will be presented at the Policy SIG at APNIC 31 in Hong Kong SAR,
      China, 21-25 February 2011.
      Change in version 2:
           - Additional author, Terence Zhang Yinghao, added, following his
             decision to withdraw prop-085 and support this prop-093.
      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
      Information about this and other policy proposals is available from:
      Gaurab, Ching-Heng, and Terence
      prop-093-v002: Reducing the minimum delegation size for the final /8
      Author:    Randy Bush
      <randy at psg dot com>
                  Philip Smith
      <pfs at cisco dot com>
                  Andy Linton
      <asjl at lpnz dot org>
                  Terence Zhang Yinghao
      <zhangyinghao at cnnic dot cn>
      Version:   2
      Date:      18 February 2011
      1.  Introduction
      - ----------------
      This is a proposal to change the minimum size of IPv4 delegations to a
      /24 when the final /8 policy [1] is activated.
      2.  Summary of current problem
      - ------------------------------
      The current final /8 allocation policy requires networks to meet the
      requirements for the minimum allocation size currently in place:
      currently a /22. To justify a /22 allocation, a network must
      demonstrate, amongst other things, an immediate need for a /24 and a
      detailed plan for use of a /23 within a year.  However, this could
      prevent small networks, that may be multihomed, operating critical
      Internet infrastructure, or connecting to IXPs, or running IPv6
      transition tools such as NAT64, from justifying a need for IPv4
      addresses under the final /8 policy.
      3.  Situation in other RIRs
      - ---------------------------
      There is no similar policy or proposal in other regions.
      4.  Details of the proposal
      - ---------------------------
      It is proposed that when APNIC enters the phase of the final /8
      4.1 The minimum delegation size be set to a /24.
      4.2 The maximum delegation size any one organisation can receive from
           the final /8 be set to a /22.
           Note: This means that an organisation which has received a single
                 /24 under this proposal is entitled to request and receive
                 additional IPv4 address(es) from APNIC until it has received
                 up to a total of a /22.
      4.3 Criteria for delegations under the final /8 policy will accordingly
           be expanded to include the following criteria:
           - Small multihoming assignments
           - Internet Exchange Points
           - Critical infrastructure
      5.  Advantages and disadvantages of the proposal
      - ------------------------------------------------
      5.1 Advantages
           - This proposal allows a greater range of networks to access the
             resources in the final /8.
           - This proposal extends the maximum possible total number of
             networks that can benefit from the final /8 pool from around
             16,000 to around 65,000 networks, providing small amounts of
             IPv4 to be available for networks, end site, etc., making the
             transition to IPv6 for many years to come.
      5.2 Disadvantages
           - No disadvantages are foreseen.
      6.  Effect on APNIC members
      - ---------------------------
      It reduces the minimum size of the delegated address block available
      to APNIC members during the final /8 phase.
      7.  Effect on NIRs
      - ------------------
      This will affect NIR members in the same way as APNIC members.
      8.  References
      - --------------
      [1] Section 9.10 "Distribution of the final /8 worth of space in the
           unallocated APNIC IPv4 address pool" of "Policies for IPv4 address
           space management in the Asia Pacific region"
      - -- 
      -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
      Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.16 (Darwin)
      Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
      -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----