Re: [sig-policy] prop-100 Returned to mailing list
I am very disappointed by your email. In the course of the discussions on prop-100 you have been asked some very clear and sensible questions by people who have put a great deal of time and effort into an honest consideration of your proposal, and yet you have ignored the difficult questions and instead just repeated your arguments.
I am again going to ask some of those questions below and explain clearly why those questions matter. I would very much hope that this time around you will show us the courtesy of a full reply to those questions:
On 3/11/2011, at 6:23 PM, RAKESH MOHAN AGARWAL wrote:
> It is clarified once again that the underlying logic of the proposal is derived from the necessity to look at IPv6 address allocation in a new perspective as against the existing practice, which is an extension of IP address policies of the IPv4 era. IPv4 addresses were in shortage therefore, policies adopted for IPv4 were oriented more towards conservation and prolonging the life of the IPv4 address space. IPv6 addresses are in abundance and their usage has only begun recently. Compared to the role of IPv4 till date, IPv6 will play a much, larger and important role in the coming years because every device and service will use IP address in some form or the other. IPv6 will emerge as the most important standard of the century. The stakes are high for everyone and therefore, it is absolutely necessary to properly plan the usage of this address space. Therefore, IPv6 address polices should be more oriented towards planned usage on a long term basis for the numerous organizations in different economies. Prop-100 has been submitted with this view in mind.
The explanation given above of the current IPv6 allocation policy is not correct. It is not an extensions of the IPv4 and it does not focus on the conservation of IPv6 addresses. The IPv6 allocation policy recognises that IPv6 is very different from IPv4 and this requires a very different policy.
> Some of the learned members have tried to examine the proposal critically from a technical perspective only but in this process they have missed out on the larger objective of the proposal – planned usage of the IPv6 address space with assurance that every economy will have some address space reserved for it whether it needs now or in the future.
This single paragraph raises many of the important questions:
1. One of the primary motivations behind the IPv6 allocation policy is the manageability of the routing table. The authors of prop-100 have been asked on several occasions to explain the impact of their proposal on the routing table, but no explanation or analysis has been provided. Your note above once again avoids tackling this issue and asks us instead to look at a different set of issues. I am happy to look at that different set of issues but the technical issues must also be looked at.
It would be very helpful for this debate if you could confirm that you acknowledge that the technical consideration of managing IPv6 routing tables is a significant consideration of the current IPv6 allocation policy and that any change to that policy must explain the impact on IPv6 routing.
The important question that then needs answering is what you believe will be the impact of prop-100 on IPv6 routing?
2. You have been asked repeatedly to provide any evidence that the current IPv6 policies do not provide assurance that every economy will be able to allocate the IPv6 addresses it needs into the foreseeable future. Pointing at the current state of play with IPv4 is not evidence as there is no link between the two allocation policies.
What has been provided by others is evidence to contradict your claim. That evidence is mathematically based, looking at the number of addresses and the potential growth rates.
The important question that then needs answering is what evidence do you have to support your claim that the current IPv6 allocation policy will not ensure that enough addresses are available for every economy in the APNIC region?
3. As many have pointed out the criteria for possible IPv6 usage in the future may include:
- current population
- expected population
- current number of RIRs
- expected number of RIRs
- size of the land mass (as a precursor of population size)
- penetration of mobile phone usage
The number of possible criteria is huge and to my mind completely unpredictable making any predictions of future use entirely unreliable. Yet prop-100 relies on reasonably accurate predictions and there are many possible problems that might occur from getting this wrong.
The important question is therefore how do you know now, in advance, what size block to allocate for a country and what evidence do you have that this is a sound choice?
regards
Jay
> Regarding the comment that feedback of other RIRs/IANA should be taken as APNIC policy cannot be misaligned with other RIRs, it is clarified that there are global policies and regional policies. Regional policies can be different e.g. the policy of NIR. NIR polices are there only in the APNIC region. Similarly prop-100 has put forward a policy proposal for the APNIC region. It has been put forward as a regional policy proposal at this stage. Whether it is suitable for other RIRs, it is their call and they may debate it separately. If the community feels that it needs to be discussed in other RIRs also then it may be done. The proposal prop-100 is more of an administrative nature regarding organization of the IPv6 address space rather than a technical proposal.
>
> There is a distinction between reservation and allocation. What the proposal prop-100 has suggested is reservation of the address space. Therefore, the address space remains with APNIC unless it is allocated. Though prop-100 does not suggest reservation for a limited period but if an economy is unable to utilize the reserved address space within a given time frame say 10 years, APNIC may consider reservation/allocation of that address space to someone else to ensure that the address space is properly utilized and does not remain locked up indefinitely.
>
> There are queries regarding organizations seeking address space outside of the reserved national block. In prop-100 no restriction has been proposed. Therefore, organizations who have obtained address space from outside the reserved national block can use that address space within the country. Similarly if organizations have obtained address space from the reserved national block, they can use that address space outside the country depending upon the network requirements. If the country has an NIR, then the NIR’s operational policies would take these issues into consideration.
>
> Some of the members have also suggested that instead of putting forward the proposal prop-100 for all the economies in the APNIC region, India can take a lead and apply the proposal within the country for a period of 2 years. Based on the experience of India, then if required the proposal prop-100 can be further applied to other economies in the APNIC region. It was also suggested that India may approach APNIC directly to get a /16 IPv6 address block through an administrative process rather than through a policy process. In this regard, we are taking up the matter with APNIC separately.
>
> Further, for the benefit of the APNIC community members we would like to bring to their notice that the draft of the National Telecom Policy 2011 (NTP-2011) has been recently released by the Government of India for public comments, where IPv6 finds a very important place. The draft policy can be accessed at http://www.dot.gov.in/NTP-2011/NTP2011.htm Our country is giving lot of importance to IPv6 deployment and proposal prop-100 seeks to make this task simpler for the country by giving importance to forward planning of the Ipv6 address space.
>
> R.M.Agarwal, B.K.Nath
> India
>
>
> Dear Colleagues
> Thank you very much for taking interest in this proposal, Though we have tried to clarify the points raised during discussions and presentations and the theme behind this proposal however as a large number of members are not convinced. We will go thru various queries again and will clarify shortly.
> Regards
> R M Agarwal & B K Nath
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: sig-policy-bounces at lists dot apnic dot net [mailto:sig-policy-bounces at lists dot apnic dot net] On Behalf Of Andy Linton
> Sent: 06 September 2011 08:51
> To: sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net
> Subject: [sig-policy] prop-100 Returned to mailing list
>
> Dear colleagues
>
> prop-100 National IP Address Plan - Allocation of country-wide IP
> address blocks, did not reach consensus at the APNIC 32 Policy SIG.
> Therefore, this proposal is being returned to the author and the Policy
> SIG mailing list for further discussion.
>
>
> Proposal details
> ----------------
>
> This proposal calls for the reservation of adequate IPv6 address space
> for each economy in the Asia Pacific region. Future allocations of this
> space to be made to organizations and stakeholders in the usual way.
>
> Proposal details including the full text of the proposal, history, and
> links to mailing list discussions are available at:
>
> http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-100
>
> Regards
>
> Andy, Skeeve, and Masato
>
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
>
> prop-100-v001: National IP Address Plan - Allocation of country-wide IP
> address blocks
> _______________________________________________________________________
>
> Author: Rakesh Mohan Agarwal <ddgnt-dot at nic dot in>
>
> Version: 2
>
> Date: 30 August 2011
>
>
> 1. Introduction
> ---------------
>
> A proposal was submitted to APNIC community on 29th July 2011 for the
> reservation of a contiguous IPv6 address block for different
> organizations / stakeholders in an economy. In that proposal I have
> tried to put forward some issues regarding the current practice of APNIC
> in the allocation of IPv6 addresses.
>
> Further clarifications were given by me on 17/8, 22/8 and 28/8 against
> various comments and observations received during the period after that
> also. In the light of the above proposal and clarifications issued by
> me, I am submitting a revised version of Prop-100 for better
> understanding of the community members giving some background of why
> this proposal was submitted by India.
>
> The Government of India released a national IPv6 policy in July 2010 in
> which it took the following important decisions –
>
> 1. All major service providers will target to handle IPv6 traffic
> and offer IPv6 services by December 2011
>
> 2. All central and state government ministries and departments,
> including its PSUs, shall start using IPv6 services by
> March-2012
>
> 3. Formation of India IPv6 Task Force
>
> For the implementation of the above policy decisions many discussions
> were held with service providers and organizations in which they were of
> the opinion that there should be proper address planning for different
> organizations within the economy. So taking cue from this, Government of
> India (Department of Telecommunications) set up a committee for
> formulation of a National IPv6 address policy.
>
> 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 request for the
> reservation of a suitably-sized block of IPv6 addresses from APNIC. This
> block can be allocated to different organizations by keeping in view the
> long term planning perspective.
>
> So it was decided that this issue should be taken up with APNIC. As
> this was a policy related issue, and other economies in the APNIC region
> may also have similar needs, therefore, the proposal was put up to APNIC
> for address block reservation at the economy level for subsequent
> allocation to different organizations within the economies in the APNIC
> region.
>
>
> 2. Summary
> ----------
>
> Right now IPv6 addresses are being allocated to individual organizations
> in different economies by APNIC within a certain policy framework, which
> was developed in the IPv4 era. But there are certain concerns with the
> above APNIC policy -
>
> (a) Contiguous address block allocation is not ensured by APNIC when
> an organization goes back to APNIC for further allocation
> (reapplying after more than one year)
>
> (b) Non provision of address space for future organizations in
> economies who are not in a position (or not aware) to ask for
> addresses at present.
>
> APNIC policy does not currently allow address blocks to be allocated at
> the economy level, so through this proposal, we are seeking a change in
> the policy for reservation of adequate IPv6 address space economy wise
> for further allocation to different organizations and stakeholders
> within the economy.
>
>
> 3. Situation in other RIRs
> --------------------------
>
> No other RIRs presently have a program to assess the needs of individual
> economies in their region and reserve appropriately-sized address
> blocks. However, economies in other RIRs may have similar needs and a
> similar program of assessment may be appropriate.
>
>
> 4. Details
> ----------
>
> In the current policy framework of APNIC, addresses are allocated to
> different organizations in different economies when they are able to
> demonstrate their need for those addresses and they apply for them.
> However, in this process two requirements, mentioned in summary above,
> are not taken into consideration. In the era of IPv4, when the addresses
> were in severe shortage, such a demonstrated need policy was relevant
> but in the era of IPv6 it is not.
>
> IPv6 addresses are in abundance and their planning and distribution is
> also at a very nascent stage. The main objective of this proposal is to
> ensure that all economies (and the different present and future
> organizations in those economies) can ensure they will get a suitable
> share of the IPv6 address space, in one or more large contiguous blocks,
> whether they need it now or at a later date. This will also help
> different organizations in different economies to plan their networks in
> a more effective manner as they will have a reasonably fair idea of the
> IPv6 address space allocation in future.
>
> This proposal can be implemented by APNIC in following manner.
>
>
> (A) Analysis and Projection of Requirements
>
> Each economy in the APNIC region is different in terms of population,
> population growth rate, GDP growth rate, mobile, internet and broadband
> penetration growth rate, social requirements etc. There could be many
> other factors, which could be taken into consideration. These factors
> would help to make an aggregate estimate of the present and future IPv6
> address requirements of all organizations and stakeholders in each
> economy. The analysis of each economy in the APNIC region could be
> conducted in one of the following ways -
>
> 1. By APNIC, since it has more experience across different economies
> and different RIRs.
>
> 2. Alternatively, a representative body in each economy, which could be
> the government of that economy or a prominent industry association or
> any other recognised body, may be approached by APNIC for estimating
> the needs of that economy. However, in this case APNIC may need to\
> conduct awareness programmes for their education and sufficient time
> is also required for making such estimation.
>
> 3. Any other suitable mechanism deemed fit by APNIC for doing such
> estimation.
>
> Through these analysis and projection estimates, economy wise IPv6
> address requirement (based on the requirements of different
> organizations and stakeholders) will emerge. This process will
> definitely take some time.
>
>
> (B) Reservation of the IPv6 address space for different economies
> (for their organizations and stakeholders) by APNIC
>
> Based on the above projections and estimates, APNIC may keep one or more
> suitably sized blocks reserved for different economies for ultimate use
> of organizations and stakeholders of those economies. APNIC may also
> keep some large blocks unreserved, i.e. not reserved for any economy in
> the beginning, for any sudden unforeseen requirements in future.
>
> The allocation of addresses from these reserved blocks to organizations
> and stakeholders in different economies may be done directly by APNIC or
> through an NIR (wherever existing) as it is doing at present. Ultimately
> these addresses will be allocated to individual organizations /
> stakeholders and not to the economy. As an example, in case of India,
> after some discussions with service providers, internet associations and
> other stakeholders, an estimate of current and future requirements of a
> /16 block, initially, has been suggested. However, the firm requirement
> has to be deliberated based upon a detailed study as suggested above.
>
> Detailed operational issues for implementing this policy, if approved,
> will have to be deliberated upon separately.
>
>
> 5. Pros/Cons
> ------------
>
> Advantages:
>
> 1. The various IPv6 awareness programmes for different economies, the
> various studies for estimation of needs of different economies and
> management of the reserved IPv6 blocks as mentioned above will no
> doubt increase the job of APNIC in the immediate future, but over a
> long period of time, this would prove to be very beneficial for IPv6
> deployment and also make the job of APNIC easier since APNIC would be
> very clear on what future allocations it can make.
>
> 2. The economies and their organizations will also benefit since they
> will have a fair idea of what they will get in future and they can
> plan accordingly for the long term for IPv6 deployment.
>
> Disadvantages:
>
> 1. There may be short term workload/financial implications for APNIC
> for analysis and projection studies, training and awareness etc.
> These however, should not be a constraint because otherwise also
> APNIC has to work for IPv6 awareness and its deployment in all
> economies in APNIC region.
>
>
> 6. Effect on APNIC
> ------------------
>
> 1. It would prove to be very beneficial for IPv6 deployment and also
> make the job of APNIC easier since APNIC would be very clear on what
> future allocations it can make.
>
> 2. Address allocation will be more organized and orderly.
>
>
> 7. Effect on NIRs
> -----------------
>
> NIRs can allocate IP addresses to individual members in its geographical
> area from the reserved blocks as per the actual projections of
> individual members.
> * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
> _______________________________________________
> sig-policy mailing list
> sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net
> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 10.0.1392 / Virus Database: 1520/3879 - Release Date: 09/05/11
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 10.0.1411 / Virus Database: 2092/3992 - Release Date: 11/02/11
>
> * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
> _______________________________________________
> sig-policy mailing list
> sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net
> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
--
Jay Daley
Chief Executive
.nz Registry Services (New Zealand Domain Name Registry Limited)
desk: +64 4 931 6977
mobile: +64 21 678840