Re: [sig-policy] prop-100 National IP Address Plan - Allocation of count
On 03/08/2011, at 5:34 AM, Andy Linton wrote:
>
> 1. Introduction
> ---------------
>
> Right now IPv6 addresses are being allocated by APNIC to individual
> telecom Service Providers/internet service providers and other
> organisations just like allocation of IPv4 addresses in which telecom
> Service Providers/internet service providers and other organisations
> specially in India are not having contiguous IP address blocks.
>
Having contiguous address blocks only makes sense for a single organisation to minimise possible bloat in the routing system. Having contiguous blocks across multiple organisations (ie Autonomous Systems) doesn't make much sense given each AS has its own unique policies for routing.
> This causes inefficiencies in routing table as well as creating problems
No it doesn't. The misnomer 'inefficiencies in the routing table', which I presume you mean routing table growth by de-aggregation are as a result of organisations using more specific route announcements to acquire 'benefits[1]' in network engineering terms.
[1] these benefits are often traffic related or security related.
> to Indian law enforcement agencies in tracing out the IP address of the
> end users.
Country wide address allocation doesn't solve this. Trust me, I'be been looking at this very issue for some time.
>
> So taking cue from this problem Government of India (Department of
> Telecommunications) set up a committee for formulation of the National
> IPv6 address policy. This committee is a 15 members body having national
Please provide a URL to this committee detailing the members involved.
> and international members from all stakeholders. 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 ask for a bigger block of IPv6
> address from APNIC.
And what happens when that 'bigger block' is used up? are you then going to renumber all of india to ensure a contiguous route announcement? Is india going to ban more specific announcements from that jumbo-block? .. I don't think so.
My interpretation is that this policy would effectively stop all multinational indian companies from using their own address space elsewhere? and possibly multinational international companies from putting in their networks into india? Are you really sure you want to put the networking brakes on big companies like that?
>
> However the exact requirement of this block will be worked out on the
> basis of IPv6 address allocated to various organisations such as telecom
> Service Providers/internet service providers and other organisations and
> new entrants like other central Government departments, State Government
> departments, public sector units, universalities, colleges, hospitals
> and other sectors in the country and their future requirement of IP
> addresses for next 20 years at least (as Ipv6 addresses are not going to
> be exhausted in these years).
Are you saying you want india to have a 20yr supply of IPv6 based on some algorithm and not based on actual documented need? This seems to be at odds with known policy drivers.
>
> As right now APNIC policy does not allow address block to be allocated
And there is a good reason for this. Address space should be allocated on a needs basis, from the most central point.
History has shown that if you don't do this you get inefficiencies in allocation.
>
> 5. Advantages and disadvantages of the proposal
> ------------------------------------------------
>
> Advantages:
>
> 1.In addition to effective and efficient routing table all
On the presumption that one autonomous system announces the entire prefix and no smaller announcements are ever made. Will this be the case? I personally don't think so.
> economies will be in a position to plan their IP address
> requirement on long term basis and accordingly they can reflect
> their requirement and get the suitable address block allocated
> either to their NIRs or get their block reserved in the APNIC.
You are presuming that an economy has the ability to predict the long term internet businesses take up in its borders. These are fuzzy ideals, and I'd like to see the paper that can accurately predict this. So far all papers I have seen that tried to do just that got it very very wrong. In fact I recall reading a paper 10 years ago that suggested the internet would not have 'take-up' in India due to the wealth disparity and lack of internationalised language.. and look now you have hundreds of millions of internet users..
>
> This would avoid discrepancies in address allocation country
> wise as happened in the case of IPv4 address allocation where
> most of the developing geographies could not get their due
> share, as in the case of India, where we are having only 18.5
> million IPv4 addresses for population of 1.2 billion and more
> than 360 million data users.
Equal share is not a term that should be used in needs based address policy.
IPv6 does not exhibit the same constraints that ipv4 did. Accept and move on.
>
> 2. Workload of RIRs would come down drastically and they will be
> able to concentrate on more productive job compared to this
> routine job.
The RIRs job IS to do allocation. That is their mandate.
>
> Disadvantages:
>
> No disadvantage appears to be there right now.
>
>
In good conscience I can not agree with this proposal. Is is filled with incorrect statements and appears to set a large pool aside for nationalistic intention. I oppose this proposal.
Cheers
Terry