Re: [sig-policy] prop-085: Eligibility for critical infrastructure assig

  • To: sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net
  • Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-085: Eligibility for critical infrastructure assignments from the final /8
  • From: Terry Manderson <terry at terrym dot net>
  • Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2010 18:18:34 +1000
  • Delivered-to: sig-policy at mailman dot apnic dot net
  • In-reply-to: <4C6B8424.6020005 at 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>
  • References: <482113207.19726@cnnic.cn> <4C6B8424.6020005@apnic.net>
  • Sender: Terry Manderson <terry.mndrsn@gmail.com>
    • 
      It strikes me that the CI block is well under-utilised and I think given that the most recent assignment was made last month, but nothing before that for about 3 months, demand seems low with a substantial amount of room to move!
      
      Thinking about the demand for CI IPv4 the amount of address space allocated from 203.119.0.0/16 for the past two years (from delegated stats) is amazingly small:
      
      apnic|AP|ipv4|203.119.77.0|256|20090909|assigned|A91DC5BE
      apnic|SG|ipv4|203.119.78.0|256|20091006|assigned|A9198D20
      apnic|KH|ipv4|203.119.79.0|256|20091120|assigned|A915B536
      apnic|CN|ipv4|203.119.80.0|1024|20091207|assigned|A9299C10
      apnic|NZ|ipv4|203.119.84.0|256|20100122|assigned|A914D522
      apnic|AP|ipv4|203.119.85.0|256|20100305|assigned|A915B536
      apnic|AU|ipv4|203.119.86.0|256|20100309|assigned|A91DC5BE
      apnic|HK|ipv4|203.119.87.0|256|20100423|assigned|A91B4F31
      apnic|AP|ipv4|203.119.88.0|512|20100311|assigned|A91B80BD
      apnic|NP|ipv4|203.119.90.0|512|20100324|assigned|A9114FFB
      apnic|AP|ipv4|203.119.92.0|512|20100723|assigned|A91DC5BE
      
      The question in my mind relates to if 203.119/16 is 100% set aside for critical infrastructure assignments or not, given that section 11.3 doesn't actually say. If so then I struggle to see what real live problem prop-085 is going to solve. My belief is that the final /8 will have its assignment policy set and will be all consumed well before enough new critical infrastructure organisations can form and apply to use up the remaining space in 203.119/16 which would imply a restraint in the wrong direction. 
      
      Since it has taken near 7 years to use 17.5% (from Sanjaya's figure), it would take a quadrupling of demand to consume the remainder in another 7 years. It could happen - but I think I'll remain a sceptic on this one since demand from CI organisations is fairly flat.
      
      So, I cannot see myself supporting this policy as written.
      
      If 203.119/16 isn't set aside for just CI applications and other member applications can encroach on it, then I think you might want to consider that to be the low hanging fruit instead of heading toward the last /8 policy space.
      
      Cheers
      Terry
      
      
      
      
      On 18/08/2010, at 4:56 PM, Sanjaya wrote:
      
      > Hi Terence and all,
      > 
      > 218.100.0.0/16 (IXP) is 12.5% utilized (26 assignments)
      > 203.119.0.0/16 (critical infrastructure) is 17.5% utilized (23 assignments)
      > 
      > Hope this helps. Let me know if you need more information.
      > 
      > 
      > On 18/08/2010 4:33 PM, Terence Zhang YH wrote:
      >> Hi Gaurab,
      >> 
      >> Thanks for your comments.
      >> 
      >> As far as I know, according to the Resource ranges allocated by APNIC:
      >> http://www.apnic.net/publications/research-and-insights/ip-address-trends/apnic-resource-range
      >> 
      >> 218.100.0.0/16 Used to make /24 assignments to Internet Exchange Points (IXPs)
      >> 203.119.0.0/16 Used to make /24 assignments to Critical Infrastructure
      >> 
      >> Of course, it will be helpful if some one from the secretariat can verify that and
      >> shed some light on how many assignments have been make from that block
      >> and the utilisation rate, etc.
      >> 
      >>> In case the allocation rate on the already reserved blocks are low, I'd
      >>> like to suggest that the policy add a condition that those blocks be
      >>> used before new allocations are made from the final /8.
      >> 
      >> I am not quite sure what the above mean.  If there are still addresses
      >> available for distribution from this block, it's pretty straight forward
      >> to make assignments from this block as long as assignments are permitted
      >> in the policy. I am not sure if that is what you mean, I am happy to add
      >> that condition if neccessary.
      >> 
      >> Regards
      >> 
      >> Terence Zhang
      >> 
      >> ----- Original Message -----
      >>> Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 04:54:04 +0100
      >>> From: Gaurab Raj Upadhaya<gaurab at lahai dot com>
      >>> Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-085: Eligibility for critical
      >>> infrastructure assignments from the final /8
      >>> To: sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net
      >>> Message-ID:<4C6A07DC.7040204 at lahai dot com>
      >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15
      >>> 
      >>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
      >>> Hash: SHA1
      >>> 
      >>> hi,
      >>> 
      >>> - From the secretariat, I'd like to know which are the ranges currently
      >>> used for critical infrastructure allocation and what is the allocation %
      >>> for those blocks.  I can only find the IXP allocation block
      >>> (218.100.0.0/16.) but not the DNS related block, which possibly is
      >>> 203.119.0.0/16)
      >>> 
      >>> In case the allocation rate on the already reserved blocks are low, I'd
      >>> like to suggest that the policy add a condition that those blocks be
      >>> used before new allocations are made from the final /8.
      >>> 
      >>> This is important, because lots of routing policies are based on giving
      >>> special dispensation to critical infrastructure blocks.
      >>> 
      >>> In General, I support this policy. It covers some very limited corner
      >>> cases, but nevertheless important corner cases to do with critical
      >>> infrastructure.  From my reading of the proposal, it also gives
      >>> continuity to the current Critical Infrastructure policy. Though,
      >>> practically, I don't see this policy being used for allocation for a
      >>> long time in future, but the data I ask above may help us judge that.
      >>> 
      >>> - -gaurab
      >>> 
      >>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
      >>> Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin)
      >>> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
      >>> 
      >>> iEYEARECAAYFAkxqB9wACgkQSo7fU26F3X2fIwCfaxn0fhdOv8kh+PsJitvSRMbW
      >>> xCAAnRFpGQq6BBhKOZV/xnDwAIPCc+cO
      >>> =/LT9
      >>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
      >> 
      >> *              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
      > *              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