APNIC home

APNIC 13 SIGs
APNIC 13 Programme
APNIC 13 AMM
APNIC 13 EC election
APNIC 13 HM consultation
APNIC 13 Sponsorship
APNIC 13 Archive
APNIC 13 Meeting Home

APRICOT 2002APNIC 13 home


13th APNIC Open Policy Meeting

SIG: Address policy

Wednesday 6 March, Queen Sirikit National Convention Center, Bangkok

Minutes

Meeting commenced: 11:10

Chair: Takashi Arano

The Chair introduced the SIG and explained the agenda. He provided general guidelines for the presenters and encouraged a wide range of participation in the discussions.

Contents
  1. IPv6 interim policy draft
  2. Global IPv6 address interim policy draft - Open issues and discussion summary
  3. Large space IPv4 trial usage program for future IPv6 promotion
  4. Draft AS policy proposal
  5. Status of APNIC IPv4 policy document
  6. RFC 2050 revision
  7. Broadband Working Group update
  8. CATV/xDSL practice

Presentations

  1. IPv6 interim policy draft
  2. [Presentation]

    Anne Lord, APNIC

    This presentation provided an outline of the current IPv6 policy draft, including the history of the review process, the main elements of the draft policies, and the recent discussions at RIPE 41 and on the global-v6 mailing list. The presentation also stressed the goal for the discussion is to reach a workable consensus to move forward.

    Questions and discussion

    • It was clarified that the figure of 776 (used in the proposed initial criteria) is derived from the HD ratio of 0.8 on a /36, which is the threshold figure for the minimum allocation.
    • There was a discussion of the assignment recommendations and it was noted that a home subnet may get a /64, but there is no requirement that such a customer would be restricted to /64.
    • There was a discussion regarding the terms relating to multiple /48s being assigned to a single organisation. It was suggested that the definition of a "site" is an area of the draft that may require more refinement.
    • It was clarified that experience in either IPv4, IPv6, or a mixture of both can be used as justification an initial allocation larger than /32.

    Top

  3. Global IPv6 address interim policy draft - Open issues and discussion summary
  4. [Presentation]

    Kosuke Ito, IPv6 Promotion Council / IPv6 Interim Draft Editorial Group

    This presentation provided a summary of the recent discussion from RIPE 41 and the global-v6 mailing list. In particular, the issues relating to the initial allocation criteria were discussed. The presenter reported the consensus of the RIPE community to replace the initial criteria with a simple requirement that organisations must become an LIR and demonstrate a need for a single IPv6 assignment. The presentation also reviewed the response to this decision on the global-v6 mailing list. It was noted that an alternative proposal raised on the list was to require that requestors be an organisation which will assign /48s to networks other than their own. An additional suggestion from the editorial team was to provide that allocations should not be made to end-sites. The presentation also reviewed the issues of revocation of allocations, the use of the HD ratio, and the level of registration responsibility that is appropriate.

    Questions and discussion

    • It was noted that the editorial teams included a reclamation clause to provide a mechanism that may be invoked, although it would not be an automatic revocation. Concern was expressed about the revocation clause. It was argued that it would be better to require that there be a limited lease/license period, with renewal upon review at the end of the period.
    • It was argued that without an agreed mechanism for reviewing and revoking allocations, a revocation clause would be ineffective. It was argued that the RIPE region would not accept a policy that would require the address holder to regularly go back to the RIR for review. However, it was also argued that the lesson from IPv4 is that it is dangerous to allow a perception that allocations are on a once-and-for-all basis.
    • It was noted that the editorial team considers that the issue of the initial allocation size is already settled. There was some concern expressed that the /32 is too small.
    • After a brief discussion, it was noted that this SIG seemed comfortable with the continued use of the HD ratio as a utilisation measure.
    • It was also noted that this SIG appeared to be comfortable with the currently proposed level of registration responsibility.
    • The Chair then sought consensus on the issues raised so far:

    Replacement of initial allocation criteria

    • There was consensus support for the replacement of the intial allocation criteria with the substance of the proposal from the editorial committee, which specifies that the requestors must not be end-sites. However, it was noted that it may be necessary to make some editorial changes to the text.

    Use of HD ratio as a measure of utilisation.

    • There was consensus that in favour of retaining the HD ratio.

    Requirement for LIRs relating to sub-allocation

    • There was consensus in favour of this proposal that LIRs should be responsible for registering all assignments made by ISPs which have received address space from that LIR.
    • In summary, the Chair noted that all three proposals had been accepted in general, but that there may be a need for editorial changes.

    Overall policy position

    • The Chair sought approval of the previous draft (circulated in December) with the amendments agreed in this session.
    • There was strong consensus support for this position.
    • It was resolved to report these decisions to the global-v6 mailing list, to report it to the next ARIN meeting, and to seek finalisation of the interim policy at the next RIPE meeting.

    [Break 12:30 - 14:00]

    Top

  5. Large space IPv4 trial usage program for future IPv6 promotion
  6. [Presentation]

    Kosuke Ito, IPv6 Promotion Council

    This presentation was a status update of the project, described in previous meetings, regarding the use of legacy IPv4 space for time-limited allocations designed to encourage deployment of IPv6. The presentation noted that the documentation of basic policies and contracts had been completed and that registry work had begun.

    Questions and discussion

    No further discussions.

    Top

  7. Draft AS policy proposal
  8. ]

    [Presentation | Paper]

    Anne Lord, APNIC

    This presentation outlined the draft ASN policy document, which has been prepared following the obsoleting of the previous IPv4 policy document which contained a simple AS policy. It was noted that the draft clarifies existing AS policy rather then proposing new policy issues.

    Questions and discussion

    • It was noted that there has been a comment received relating to the registration of routing policy. This concern was expressed in the SIG also. It was suggested that there should be no requirement on ISPs to expose their routing policies. It was suggested that the requirement should be expressed as a general optional recommendation. It was suggested that if registration of routing policy was compulsory, then some ISPs would not feel comfortable about properly registering their ASNs.
    • However, concern was expressed as to why ISPs should wish to hide their routing policies, when several tools already allow this information to be discovered. In response to this, it was argued that the routing policy attribute is likely to go out of date, and that it is better to have wrong information than no information.
    • It was noted that the proposal requires that those receiving ASNs must sign an agreement with APNIC, and that ISPs will not be able to directly provide ASNs to their customers.
    • It was clarified that it would be up to NIRs to decide whether they would enter contracts with non-members requesting ASNs.
    • It was noted that this document applies to organisations multihoming under both IPv4 and IPv6.
    • The proposal was amended to change sections 7.2 and 7.3 to state that registration of routing policies is optional.
    • There was a show of hands on the question of whether the amended proposal is acceptable. There appeared to be consensus on this proposal. There was no opposition.

    Top

  9. Status of APNIC IPv4 policy document
  10. [Presentation]

    Gerard Ross, APNIC

    This presentation reported on the status of the draft document Policies for IPv4 Address Space Management in the Asia Pacific Region. The presentation noted that the document reflected the consensus items that arose from the APNIC 12 meeting in Taipei.

    Questions and discussion

    No further discussions.

    Top

  11. RFC 2050 revision
  12. [Presentation]

    Cathy Wittbrodt, ASO Address Council

    This presentation was an overview and update of the activities of the working group which has been tasked to investigate the revision of RFC 2050. The presentation also contained an open invitation for participation in the working group.

    Questions and discussion

    • There was a comment that the future of the ASO no longer seems assured and that therefore it may be better to continue this work under the umbrella of the RIRs and the IETF. However it was noted that the ASO is not the same as the Address Council, and that it could remain a part of the community independent of any changes to the ICANN structure.
    • It was argued that it would be a mistake to include the IETF in this process as it is a policy issue rather than a technical one.
    • There was a suggestion that even though it may not be appropriate to develop the document in the IETF process, it would be a good idea to submit a final document to the RFC editor for publication as an informational document.
    • It was noted that RFC 2050's definition of "organisation" is not realistic in the current business environment.
    • The Chair encouraged members of the Asia Pacific community to participate in this process.
    • The Chair requested that the presenter report the content of this discussion to the working group mailing list.

    [Break: 15:10 - 15:45]

    Top

  13. Broadband Working Group update
  14. [Presentation]

    Takashi Arano, Asia Global Crossing

    This presentation outlined the outstanding issues from the Broadband Working Group's proposal to APNIC 12. In particular, the presentation covered the following topics:

    • the use of customer lists for request evaluation;
    • the recommendation to assign static customers one address only, unless full justification is given for the assignment of multiple addresses;
    • and registration criteria for network assignments.

    The presentation also noted that additional proposals had been received since APNIC 12.

    Questions and discussion

    Customer lists

    • Working Group suggested that customer lists may be required to demonstrate the applicant has used the addresses.
    • It was noted that APNIC no longer finds customer lists especially useful, and that head end information is more useful. There were other comments to the effect that customer lists do not provide useful information and they raise other issues with relation to privacy.
    • It was explained that customer lists are generally only used as a last resort.
    • There was support expressed for the statement that change to the current wording of the proposal is not required, as it does not make supply of customer lists mandatory.

    Assignment justification

    • It was noted that in Korea, there is extensive use of Internet sharing services, so there is no significant demand for greater than 1:1 assignments. JPNIC reported that the situation in Japan is similar.
    • It was suggested that the development of future services will require that this issue be reviewed from time to time.
    • There was some support expressed and no objections to adopting the decision of the Working Group, that assignment ratios of greater than one address per static customer would require full justification.

    Registration criteria

    • It was explained that the proposal of the Working Group is to require registration of networks of /29 or above. Although a suggestion had been made at APNIC 12 to amend the criteria to /28, there had been no further discussion in favour of that position.
    • There was some support expressed (and no objections raised) to adopting the recommendation of the Working Group.
    • In summary, the Chair noted consensus on all the three proposed recommendations.

    Top

  15. CATV/xDSL practice
  16. [Presentation]

    Akinori Maemura, JPNIC IP Address WG / France Telecom Long Distance

    This presentation provided an overview of the alternative cable evaluation proposals formulated by Cable/ADSL operators following the JPNIC Open Policy SIG. In particular, the criticism from the JPNIC community is to the effect that CMTS equipment is not an appropriate measure of allocation need and that downstream ports are more appropriate; that /24 is not a sufficient minimum allocation measure; that the 80% usage rule can give rise to IP address shortage; and that the initial allocation should be made for a period of at least three months.

    Questions and discussion

    • It was proposed to amend the guidelines with respect to the initial allocation size, and the current policy document to ensure that RIR/NIRs should try to prevent IP address shortages for the LIRs.
    • There was a concern expressed that the type of CMTS used could have an effect on the guidelines proposed. It was suggested that policy should be independent of technology; however, it was clarified that the recommendation is intended as general guidelines rather then policies.
    • There was a discussion about the general distinctions to be made between considering CMTS and considering ports.
    • It was noted that the CMTS guideline was intended only a simple, quick bootstrap, and that there may be some concerns about raising the default assignment size.

    Allowing default assignments of /23 per downstream ports.

    • There was no consensus reached for changing the current guideline. The guideline will remain as a default allocation of /24 per CMTS.

    RIR/NIR should try to prevent IP address shortage at LIR.

    • The following statement was proposed: "IR and RIR should allocate IP addresses in sufficient size and allow requests to be submitted sufficiently in advance to prevent LIR's shortage of allocated IP addresses".
    • It was suggested that there may some more work required on determining exactly what this proposal should relate to and on developing more specific wording.
    • It was noted that there is currently a provision in the policy which has the same effect and that there is a practice of providing emergency allocations if there is a risk of address shortages.
    • It was suggested that the existing practices are sufficient, but that perhaps it is necessary to make a clearer statement so that all members are aware of the possibility.
    • The Chair asked whether there as a need for this kind of sentence to be included in the IPv4 allocation policy document.
    • There was no consensus on this issue. The Chair asked that this matter be referred to the mailing list.


    • The Chair recommended an action on APNIC to revise and publish the guidelines document.
    • The presenter encouraged everyone to send their opinions to the Broad Working Group mailing list.

Meeting closed: 16:45

Minuted by: Gerard Ross

Top | Minutes


Last modified: Thursday, 08-Nov-2007 12:34:41 EST | © 1999 - 2018 APNIC Pty. Ltd.
Contact us | Privacy statement