APNIC 16 Home APNIC 16 Home
APNIC Home

 

SIG: Address policy

Wednesday 20 - Thursday 21 August 2003, Lotte Hotel, Jamsil - Seoul, Korea

Minutes

Meeting commenced: 2:05 pm

Chair: Takashi Arano

Co-chairs: Yong Wan Ju, Kenny Huang

The Chair introduced the SIG and thanked the sponsors. The Chair explained the agenda and encouraged participation throughout the meeting.

Contents
  1. Draft charter
  2. Review previous open action items
  3. A proposal for a revised policy development process in the Asia Pacific region
  4. Proposal for an APNIC document editorial policy
  5. Summary of the current issues on IPv6 policy
  6. IPv6 guidelines document
  7. IANA to RIR IPv4 allocation proposals
  8. IPv6 address space management - A follow up to RIPE-261
  9. Modified APNIC policy for Internet Exchange Point (IXP) assignments
  10. Supporting historical resource transfers
  11. Unique local IPv6 unicast address
  12. Large IPv4 address space usage trial for future IPv6 applications and services
  13. HD ratio for IPv4
  14. IPv4 address lifetime expectancy
  15. Current open action items

  1. Draft charter
  2. Takashi Arano, Intec NetCore

    Presentation [ppt | pdf]

    The Chair noted the following draft charter: "The charter of the Policy SIG is to develop policies and procedures which relate to the management and use of Internet address resources by APNIC, NIRs, and ISPs in the Asia Pacific region."

    Action items

    • Action add-16-001: The Chair will circulate this draft charter to the mailing list for further discussion.

    Top

  3. Review previous open action items
  4. Takashi Arano, Intec NetCore

    Presentation [ppt | pdf]

    • Action add-15-001 update: APNIC Secretariat has completed a draft proposal summarising the suggested formal process for receiving and discussing proposals.
    • Action add-15-002 update: This action item remains open. The original author has been contacted for more information, but this has not yet been received.

    Top

  5. A proposal for a revised policy development process in the Asia Pacific region
  6. Anne Lord, APNIC

    Presentation [ppt | pdf]

    The presenter noted that policy proposals are now given numbers for easier tracking of development.

    This presentation detailed a proposal arising from discussions at APNIC 15 to formulate a structured policy development process.

    The presenter discussed the current processes for developing policy. She also discussed issues relating to determining consensus in group and mailing list discussions. She noted the self-regulatory nature of the current system and described the current steps relating to mailing lists, SIG meetings, and the APNIC Member Meetings.

    The presenter noted that the minimum possible time to reach a decision in the current process is approximately three weeks. She also outlined the problems of the current system, especially the potential for decisions to be taken without sufficient input from all relevant stakeholder groups.

    The proposed policy development process comprises the following:

    • A one month deadline for submitting written proposals to the SIGs for discussion at the Open Policy Meetings. Proposals which are submitted after the deadline may still be discussed, but will not be decided upon.
    • If consensus arises at the SIG meeting, the Chair would report this to the AMM.
    • If a proposal reaches consensus at the AMM, it will be announced to the mailing list for further discussion during a fixed comment period. The options provided for the comment period were either eight weeks after the AMM, or until the next open policy meeting.
    • After the comment period, the proposal would be referred to the Executive Council for ratification of the decision.

    The presenter asked the SIG to consider the two options presented for the comment period.

    The presenter reported on the questions and comments raised when this proposal was discussed at the recent South Asia Network Operators Group. One of the questions raised was how to determine consensus on a mailing list. It was suggested that silence on the mailing list should mean that the consensus stands. There was also a suggestion that a four week comment period after the AMM would also be appropriate.

    Questions and discussion

    • There was a discussion as to whether the four week suggestion from SANOG should be an additional option. It was suggested that those favouring a shorter period could opt for the eight week option.
    • It was noted that some decisions affect a very wide group of stakeholders and have serious consequences for the whole Internet. It was also noted that due to language differences across the region, it is necessary to allow sufficient time for proposals to be discussed. Also, the Executive Council is empowered to act on issues that are time critical.
    • The Chair asked for consensus on the various elements of the proposal:

      Submission of written proposals one month before the meeting

      • There was a suggestion of extending discussion time after the AMM in the case of late proposals. It was noted that this would require an amendment of the proposal on hand and should be up to the community to decide.

      Comment period. Option A, 8 weeks after AMM; Option B, 26 weeks, decided at next AMM.

      • It was suggested that current policy was raised at APNIC 15, discussed on the lists, and presented again at this meeting. It was suggested that this seems to be working.
      • There was a suggestion that as there is very little traffic on the mailing lists, there is no point to leaving an issue on the lists for such a long time.
      • There was an alternative suggestion to use a short comment period (4 or 8 weeks) and extend it if necessary based on the judgment of the chair.
      • A LACNIC representative explained that LACNIC is currently going through a similar exercise. He noted that the LACNIC proposal is very similar to the proposal now at hand, particularly Option A. However, he also noted that in the LACNIC region, language is not so much a problem.
      • An ARIN representative explained the ARIN process and noted that it is currently under review. It is expected that a new process document should be in place by October 2003. At ARIN, the pre-meeting deadline works well.
      • The Chair proposed an amendment to Option A that, if needed, the comment period could be extended. He noted that eight weeks seems preferable to 26 weeks. He asked for a show of hands.
      • There was a show of hands strongly in favour of Option A, with the amendment that the comment period could be extended if necessary.

      Final endorsement from the EC

      • The Chair noted that this option would be most suitable for Option A. There were no further discussions on this issue.
      • The Chair summarised the consensus as follows: There should be written proposals submitted one month before the policy meeting, consensus items should be taken to the AMM for confirmation, there should be an eight week comment period after the AMM (which could be extended if necessary), and that the EC should then confirm the final consensus.

    • There was a discussion as to how extending the comment period would help reaching a consensus if it was not already obvious. It was suggested in reply that there may be occasions where it was not possible to get full input from important stakeholders, and that additional time for comments could be useful.
    • There was a comment that the decisions of the SIG and AMM should be considered as substantive, and that extensions of time in the subsequent comment period are unlikely to achieve a better consensus. It was argued that it may be better to feed the entire discussion back into the process again. It was argued that there needs to be caution about accepting proposals in the AMM that are not fully considered in the hope that they can be fixed with minor amendments in the comment period. However, it was noted that most attendees did not share this concern.

    Action items

    • Action add-16-002: Secretariat to prepare implementation of this policy development process proposal (prop-001-v001) as agreed, subject to final endorsement according to the policy development process.

    Top

  7. Proposal for an APNIC document editorial policy
  8. Gerard Ross, APNIC

    Presentation [ppt | pdf]

    This was a proposal to modify the current document review processes to take full account of the effect of consensus decisions reached through the APNIC policy development process and to provide a separate, simple editorial process.

    Questions and discussion

    • There were no questions or further discussion. The Chair asked for a show of hands and noted consensus in favour of accepting the proposal and amending it as soon as possible.

    Action items

    • Action add-16-003: Secretariat to prepare implementation of this document editorial proposal (prop-002-v001) as agreed, subject to final endorsement according to the policy development process.

    Top

  9. Summary of the current issues on IPv6 policy
  10. Izumi Okutani, JPNIC

    Presentation [ppt | pdf]

    This presentation is intended to raise awareness of the concerns and perceptions relating to the current globally coordinated IPv6.

    The presenter reviewed the nature and significance of the concerns that have been raised in Japanese policy forums and on global policy lists. She categorised the concerns into substantial specific issues and issues not yet specific enough to warrant further discussion.

    There have been specific concerns raised about the criteria for allocation. One concern is the 200 customer threshold for allocation eligibility. There have also been concerns about the use of the HD ratio for utilisation.

    The presenter noted that most comments received are related to initial, rather than subsequent, allocations. She suggested that there appears to be a psychological barrier posed by the 200 customer criterion.

    There are also problems in interpretation of the current provisions relating to consideration of IPv4 networks.

    Mobile network operators have noted they do not necessarily make customer assignments in the same way as other networks and may misunderstand the intention behind the 200 customer assignment requirement.

    The presenter noted that there have been general concerns raised also in relation to subsequent allocations and reverse delegations, which may require better documentation in the future.

    The presenter also discussed the concerns raised in relation to multihomed networks and portable assignments. She noted that consideration of these concerns would need to take account of the effect on the routing table.

    In relation to transit providers, there have been no strong needs expressed in Japan, but there have been some comments on the global IPv6 mailing list.

    Closed networks and interconnected large intranets also raise issues that need further consideration.

    Finally, the presenter also noted that there are editorial and typographical problems in the current policy document.

    Questions and discussion

    • An ARIN representative noted that there are discussions on ARIN mailing lists, especially in relation to the 200 customer threshold. A policy proposal was discussed at the most recent ARIN meeting. The decision was for interested parties and the ARIN AC to work with other RIRs and communities to resolve these concerns.
    • It was suggested that the original intention of the clause relating to IPv4 address holdings may have been lost in the drafting of the document. It was intended that IPv4 holdings should be able to justify a correspondingly significant IPv6 allocation. Similar comments were made in relation to the intention of the 200 customer threshold.
    • There was a suggestion that the current document contains a lot more than just policy and that an important task for the document editorial team would be to create a far more concise policy statement.
    • A representative from the RIPE NCC noted that the 200 customer threshold was originally construed by the RIPE community as an intention. In the editorial process this became a plan to make 200 assignments within two years.

    Top

    [Break 3:45 - 4:05 pm]

  11. IPv6 guidelines document
  12. Izumi Okutani, JPNIC

    Presentation [ppt | pdf]

    This presentation was a follow up to the previous presentation and proposed forming a group to develop a guidelines document to address concerns and misunderstandings related to the IPv6 policy document.

    The presenter noted the specific issues that needed to be addressed and noted that it is important to create a concise and relatively short guidelines document.

    The presenter described the role of this document, stressing that it would not be a policy document itself, and provided examples of the type of content it should provide.

    The proposal is for content to be provided by the document team and to be drafted and edited by the APNIC Secretariat.

    Questions and discussion

    • It was noted that ARIN does have a full guidelines document for IPv6 available on their web site.
    • A RIPE NCC representative noted that RIPE NCC does not have a guidelines document, but does have some supporting documentation on the web site.
    • It was also suggested that rather than providing guidelines for an unclear document, it may be better to work on drafting a new policy document.
    • It was noted that it while it is important to review the actual policy, a guidelines document would also be very useful.
    • The Chair asked for input on forming a working group to draft guidelines. There were no objections to this.

    Action items

    • Action add-16-004: APNIC Secretariat to call for the formation of a working group to draft IPv6 guidelines.

    Top

  13. IANA to RIR IPv4 allocation proposals
  14. Ray Plzak, ARIN

    Presentation [ppt | pdf]

    The presenter stressed that this policy is being presented on behalf of all RIRs, with the intention of submitting it to the ICANN Board for consideration as a global policy.

    Currently there is no policy determining how IANA allocates IPv4 to RIRs.

    The presenter defined the key terms in the proposal, particularly "available space", and "necessary space". He also explained the basis for the justifying "special need" to IANA.

    This proposal recommends that IANA should allocate on an 18 month necessary space basis, in units of /8. A new RIR automatically qualifies for /8. Additional allocations would be available if the available space is less than 50 percent of one /8 or if the available space is less than the necessary space.

    It was also recommended that the RIR receiving an allocation should be the body to make the initial announcements to the relevant mailing lists.

    Questions and discussion

    • There was a question about the desirability of allocating a /8 when an RIR has less than 50 percent of a /8, regardless of the allocation rate. It was explained that the justification for that provision was to avoid excessive fragmentation arising from allocations within small blocks.
    • There was a comment about why the IANA applies such strict policies to the RIRs currently, when it is the RIRs which are responsible for monitoring usage.
    • It was explained that the current practice is that every time an RIR goes to IANA it is asked different questions and subjected to different criteria. It was also noted that the lack of communication and complexity of the IANA algorithm led to a lack of predictability in the time taken to receive allocations.
    • The Co-chair asked for a show of hands on this proposal. He noted that the proposal had been accepted without amendment. The next steps are for this to be presented to other RIRs for their consideration with a view to then submitting it to the ASO process.

    Action items

    • Action add-16-005: Chair to circulate IANA to RIR IPv4 allocation principles document (prop-008-v001) to mailing list according to policy development process.

    Top

  15. IPv6 address space management - A follow up to RIPE-261
  16. Anne Lord, APNIC

    Presentation [ppt | pdf]

    The presenter explained the intention of RIPE-261, which was to recommend an allocation method to reduce the fragmentation of address space in IPv6.

    It was noted that currently allocations are made by IANA in /23 blocks. The RIRs allocate in units of /32 and reserve to /29. RIPE-261 recommended a common allocation pool to be administered jointly by all RIRs. The RIRs would practice sparse allocations within this pool to maximise the chances of subsequent allocations to networks being contiguous. RIPE-261 was considered to be good in principle, but concerns were raised about how a common allocation pool would remove the possibility of filtering on regional grounds.

    The current proposal is that IANA allocates to the RIRs in units no less than /8 and that the RIRs practice sparse allocations within those blocks.

    The proposed next steps would be to seek general acceptance of the principle in the other regions and to develop a document that could be put forward for approval as global policy.

    Questions and discussion

    • It was suggested that the document should not mandate the allocation practices to be used by the RIRs within the blocks received, as this is a matter for local rather than global policy.
    • It was clarified that the proposal is for IANA to allocate a /8 to each RIR.
    • It was noted that there are 32 /8s in the currently defined unicast IPv6 space (subject to 6bone allocations).
    • It was suggested that a /12 would also be acceptable and may help ease some concerns expressed about conservation.
    • Allocation size

      • The Co-chair asked for a show of hands in support of IANA allocating /8 or /12 blocks.
      • The Co-chair noted that there is support for the principle that IANA should allocate more than /23, but more discussion is required as to just how large those allocations should be. It was noted, however, that there appeared to be a fair degree of support for /8 allocations.

    • Sparse allocation practice

      • The Co-Chair asked for a show of hands on the subject of APNIC practicing sparse allocation. He noted consensus in favour of this practice.

    Action items

    • Action add-16-006: Chairs to initiate discussion on mailing list relating to preferred IANA to RIR IPv6 allocation size.

    Top

  17. Modified APNIC policy for Internet Exchange Point (IXP) assignments
  18. Bill Woodcock, PCH

    Presentation [ppt | pdf]

    This presentation proposed several updates to the existing policies on IXP assignments.

    The proposal is to provide an updated definition of IXPs, to recommend simultaneous IPv4 and IPv6 assignments (with matching values on the last two bytes), to remove the block on routing IXP assignments, and to waive assignment fees for qualifying not-for-profit IXPs (see proposal text for details).

    The presenter noted that the proposal for IPv4 and IPv6 assignments to have matching values is for convenience rather than technical reasons.

    It was explained that in developing countries, there is a strong need to bootstrap the establishment of local exchange points at reduced cost, in order to boost Internet development in those countries. This is the justification for the proposed fee waiver for qualifying not-for-profit IXPs. IXPs which received fee waivers, which subsequently changed their policies may become liable to fees.

    Questions and discussion

    • It was noted that AfriNIC is considering such a proposal, but whether it became globally common policy is yet to be determined. It was noted that there is a need in Asia, in Africa, and perhaps Eastern Europe. It was suggested that there may not be such a need in North America or Western Europe.
    • It was noted that the proposal does not intend to remove the existing criteria for assignments at no fee.
    • An APNIC EC representative suggested that it may not be necessary to create a new policy if the only objective is to get a fee waiver in special circumstances. It was suggested however, that it may not be desirable for the EC to have to consider each emerging IXP in poor countries. It was also noted that the culture in this region is to take the policies on full face value and to not look for loopholes. It was argued that it would be preferable to document this as policy.
    • The Co-chair asked for other opinions or comments from the floor.
    • In response to a question about IXP fees, the presenter explained that the intention of this policy was to assist those exchanges which do not charge their participants any fees.
    • It was suggested that the situations of these IXPs vary on a case by case basis and that the EC may be better able to decide on whether certain cases should have fees waived.
    • The Co-Chair asked for a show of hands on the proposal without amendment, and on the suggestion that the EC should consider individual applications for waiver of fees. There was no clear consensus.
    • The presenter withdrew the parts of the proposal relating to fee waivers.
    • The Co-chair asked for a show of hands in relation to the definition and characteristics. There was support for this.
    • The Co-chair asked for a show of hands in relation to the eligibility for portable assignments and the assignment details. This was accepted.
    • The Co-chair asked for a show of hands in relation to the routing methods. This was accepted.
    • The Co-chair asked for a show of hands in relation to whether fees should be documented or treated case by case. There was no consensus on this issue, so it was decided to refer this issue for further discussion.
    • In summary, all elements of the proposal were accepted except for:
      • The elements related to the fees, which were withdrawn
      • The element proposing matching simultaneous IPv4 and IPv6 assignments, which require further discussion

    Action items

    • Action add-16-007: Secretariat to prepare implementation of the agreed parts of the IXP proposal (prop-011-v001), namely definitions and routing restriction amendments, subject to final endorsement according to the policy development process.
    • Action add-16-008: Proposer to resubmit revised version of IXP proposal (prop-011-v001) dealing with remaining proposal elements, such as fee waiver (which had been withdrawn during discussion), characteristics (which became ambiguous with withdrawal of fee portions), and combined IPv4 and IPv6 assignments (which were not fully discussed).

    Top

  19. Supporting historical resource transfers
  20. Paul Wilson, APNIC

    Presentation [ppt | pdf]

    This was a proposal to support the transfer of historical resources under certain specific conditions.

    This proposal relates to historical resources, such as ERX, AUNIC, and resources allocated by APNIC before the membership structure. None of these resources are currently governed by agreements or clear policies. There is also a great deal of inaccurate data in relation to historical resources.

    Historical resources also often lack protection mechanisms and are at risk of hijacking, particularly for such purposes as hacking and spamming.

    The presenter noted that APNIC members carry the cost of maintaining registrations of early resources and that the activities carried on with such resources can also raise potential legal risks.

    It is proposed to allow voluntary transfers of historical resources to APNIC members. There would be no review of the technical issues relating to the transfer. However, there would be verification of the right of the resource holders to make the transfers. Recipients must be members of APNIC so that the resources would come under the normal policy frameworks. There would be no transfer fees.

    Implementation of this proposal would require a transfer form, the development of a procedure to validate historical registrations, validation procedures to confirm consent of the recipient, and registration of the transferred resources. Although there would be no transfer fee, the resources would be counted towards the evaluation of the membership tier.

    Questions and discussion

    • It was clarified that currently APNIC does update whois data in relation to transfer of historical data. It was explained that in order to have a transfer registered under this policy, it would be necessary for the recipient to either be or become a member.
    • It was also explained that where historical resources are being properly maintained and actively used, they may be transferred without APNIC's knowledge or involvement. Existing rights and abilities of historical resource holders would not be limited by this proposal.
    • There was a question about how this would affect companies that are acquired. It was clarified that if companies have control over their historical resources, they can affect changes over those records without APNIC's cooperation.
    • It was explained that under this proposal resources transferred would then be able to be reassigned and dealt with in the same way that normal LIR allocations are used.
    • It was explained that it is intended that this policy should be made available for NIRs as well. This would involve an allocation of address space from an APNIC pool to a member on the approval of the NIR itself.
    • It was explained that the intended effect of the policy is that recipients of transfers who are members can have the transfer recognised without the requirement of showing technical justification for the amount of space held.
    • The Co-chair asked for a show of hands on this proposal. The proposal was accepted by consensus.

    Action items

    • Action add-16-009: Secretariat to prepare implementation of this historical resource transfer proposal (prop-006-v001) as agreed, subject to final endorsement according to the policy development process. There is a recommendation that the policy document should clarify that existing resource holders will be able to still update their resources as previously.

    Top

    [Session adjourned 6:45 pm - recommenced 9:05 am Thursday 21 August]

  21. Unique local IPv6 unicast address
  22. Geoff Huston, Telstra

    Presentation [ppt | pdf]

    This presentation reviewed developments within the IAB in relation to local site addressing. The presenter noted that the use of site local addresses has been reconsidered and that there is now a proposal being developed in relation to a local-use address pool. The presenter raised the question as to whether the RIRs would have a role in the distribution of such addresses.

    The presenter provided an overview of the local-use address pool proposal, which would assign separate, non-aggregatable /48 prefixes. The working group has discussed the formation of a separate, highly automated registry to provide these addresses on a permanent basis for a small one-off fee and without technical justification. He noted that it would be necessary to maintain secure assignment records to ensure uniqueness, but there is no intention that such registrations should be made public. The presenter stressed that the model for this registry is transaction-based, rather than membership-based.

    The presenter stressed that the registry activities required for such service are very different to the activities carried out by RIRs now. However, it was also stressed that a single global registry would pose considerable problems. Other issues arise, such as the ability to maintain a distinction between these addresses and any other unicast address.

    Questions and discussion

    • It was noted that the entire space recommended for this purpose would contain 2.2 trillion identifiers, with half set aside for distribution by a registry and the other half available for random self-assignment.
    • It was suggested that the proposal for local-use anycast addresses is being taken seriously by many large corporations that want unique internal addressing.
    • There was a discussion as to why, if the IPv6 pool is so big, don't the RIRs just change their policies to reduce the reliance on aggregation and make provider independent assignments based on need. It was suggested that perhaps the RIRs may not always need to put the same emphasis on past routing issues in developing current policies.

    Action items

    • None

    Top

  23. Large IPv4 address space usage trial for future IPv6 applications and services
  24. Kosuke Ito, IPv6 Promotion Council of Japan

    Presentation [ppt | pdf]

    This presentation was an update of a large IPv4 address space usage trial in Japan, which aims to encourage future IPv6 use.

    The presenter noted that there continues to be an increase in always-on, fixed IP services by participants in the trial. Many users are now beginning to trial IPv6 services, especially in wireless and broadband applications. Users have reported greater freedom and simplified network design.

    However, some participants reported a greater increase in attacks and noted a need for greater understanding of security issues.

    The presenter noted that registry operations have been simplified in this trial and the amount of manual work has been minimised. The presenter provided an overview of the registry system structure.

    The trial has been successful in convincing participating ISPs of the benefits of IPv6, which flow from the lower overheads and larger address pool. It has also raised awareness of the need for higher security considerations.

    Questions and discussion

    • None

    Top

  25. HD ratio for IPv4
  26. Paul Wilson, APNIC

    Presentation [ppt | pdf]

    This proposal is about introducing a new method of evaluating address utilisation in IPv4. The presenter described the use of HD ratios in IPv6 address space to calculate utilisation in hierarchically managed address space.

    The presenter described how the HD ratio is currently applied in IPv6. In IPv4, the current rule for measuring utilisation is the 80 percent rule, which requires that 80 percent of the allocated space is assigned before a subsequent allocation is possible. This can pose problems for larger networks, where the level of hierarchical management is greater.

    The proposal is to use a variation of the HD ratio - the Assignment Density (AD) ratio - in IPv4 networks. The presenter noted that the specific AD ratio value proposed creates a utilisation curve which is significantly less steep than does the HD ratio value used under IPv6.

    The presenter noted that in IPv4, assignments are counted rather than actual site addresses utilised. Assignments would continue to be the unit of measurement under this proposal.

    The proposal includes a table of likely or allowable hierarchy depths to relate block sizes to reasonable utilisation percentages, in order to determine a reasonable AD ratio value.

    The presenter outlined the administrative changes that would be required to implement this proposal.

    The presenter described the potential initial impact on address space use of implementing this proposal. He presented calculations suggesting that the maximum initial impact of this proposal would be the waste of 0.81 /8 blocks, corresponding to additional allocations totalling 19 percent of currently allocated address space. The ongoing impact is estimated to be a maximum of 22 percent increase in address consumption. It was noted that these estimates are based on the assumption that large ISPs would grow at faster rates than smaller ISPs.

    The presenter suggested that the current 80 percent rule has penalised large ISPs and had an adverse impact on their management of addresses.

    It was noted that this proposal was not submitted in time for a consensus decision to be made at this meeting. Rather, the presenter sought an indication of agreement in principle so that it could also be discussed in other regions.

    Questions and discussion

    • This proposal has been noted in the ARIN region and is planned to be proposed at the October 2003 ARIN meeting.
    • It was explained that the reason this has been proposed, rather than lowering the 80 percent requirement, is that the HD ratio provides a measure of management overhead which is theoretically uniform for address blocks of any size. It was also noted that there has not been any sense that small ISPs have problems with meeting the 80 percent rule. On the other hand, there have been many concerns expressed by larger ISPs about the complexity of their internal hierarchies and the possibility of fragmentation of ranges and leakage of routes.
    • It was explained that the calculations considered unutilised space as "wasted". That "wasted" space is critical for effective management and remains able to be used in future.
    • A representative from JPNIC noted that it would be necessary for JPNIC to seek input from LIRs in Japan.
    • A representative from APJII expressed support for this proposal.
    • There is an ARIN policy that allows for exceptions to the 80 percent rule in the case of multiple discrete networks.

    Action items

    • None

    Top

  27. IPv4 address lifetime expectancy
  28. Geoff Huston, Telstra

    Presentation [ppt | pdf]

    This was an informational presentation of independent analysis into likely IPv4 exhaustion. It was emphasised that although APNIC has supported some of this research, the analysis and predictions are made on a personal basis only.

    The presenter explained that the analysis is based on the assumption that future patterns of usage will be similar to current use. It looks only at the amount of address space globally advertised in the BGP routing table.

    The presenter reviewed the various possible data sources that could be considered, such as the IANA allocation files, the RIR allocation statistics, or the amount of address space corresponding to announcements in the BGP routing table.

    The presenter noted that the IANA data appears to be incorrect for allocations before 1995.

    The model used assumes an exponential growth rate, where the rate of allocations is proportional to the amount already allocated. This model does not assume the emergence of a new application with massive address needs. The projection arising from the IANA data, projects that IPv4 address space would extend until 2019. However, the presenter noted the extent of assumptions inherent in this projection. He also noted the quality problems within the IANA data files.

    When considering RIR statistics files, it is possible to extract a log of historical allocation and a snapshot of current status. Analysis of RIR data reveals that approximately six percent of the total address pool appears to be in "holding pools" between IANA and the RIRs, making it hard to account for. The projections based on the RIR data show that the growth rate is lower than the IANA rate, and that exhaustion would occur somewhere between 2025 and 2029. The presenter noted that there is a reasonably high number of errors between the whois data and the statistics files.

    When considering the BGP routing table, it is important to note that not everyone sees the same addresses and that large amounts of address space flap all the time. Under this view, it appears that only 29 percent of the address space is currently in use. Analysis shows that many of the old class B and IANA /8 allocations are not advertised. The BGP data leads to a projection of IPv4 exhaustion in 2029.

    Closer analysis of the age of the unadvertised space shows that it was predominantly allocated between 1989-1995. It was noted that the emergence of RIRs has indeed led to public address space allocations being used.

    The presentation included a graph comparing the various predictions and assuming a demand for allocated unused space, concluding that the real break point in the system occurs somewhere after 2020.

    The presenter explained that several factors could completely overturn the model used in this analysis, such as the abandoning of NAT models.

    Questions and discussion

    • There was an observation that the spike in the IANA file appears to correlate roughly with the transfer from SRI to NRI. It was commented that this transfer may have been less than complete.

    Top

Meeting closed: 11:00 am

Minuted by: Gerard Ross

Current open action items

The Chair reviewed the open action items.

  • Action add-15-002: Secretariat to refer discussion of signing the DNS root to the DNS Operations SIG.
  • Action add-16-001: The Chair will circulate the draft charter to the mailing list for further discussion.
  • Action add-16-002: Secretariat to prepare implementation of policy development process proposal (prop-001-v001) as agreed, subject to final endorsement according to the policy development process.
  • Action add-16-003: Secretariat to prepare implementation of document editorial proposal (prop-002-v001) as agreed, subject to final endorsement according to the policy development process.
  • Action add-16-004: Secretariat to call for the formation of a working group to draft IPv6 guidelines.
  • Action add-16-005: Chair to circulate IANA to RIR IPv4 allocation principles document (prop-008-v001) to mailing list according to policy development process.
  • Action add-16-006: Chairs to initiate discussion on mailing list relating to preferred IANA to RIR IPv6 allocation size.
  • Action add-16-007: Secretariat to prepare implementation of the agreed parts of the IXP proposal (prop-011-v001), namely definitions and routing restriction amendments, subject to final endorsement according to the policy development process.
  • Action add-16-008: Proposer to resubmit revised version of IXP proposal (prop-011-v001) dealing with remaining proposal elements, such as fee waiver (which had been withdrawn during discussion), characteristics (which became ambiguous with withdrawal of fee portions), and combined IPv4 and IPv6 assignments (which were not fully discussed).
  • Action add-16-009: Secretariat to prepare implementation of the historical resource transfer proposal (prop-006-v001) as agreed, subject to final endorsement according to the policy development process. There is a recommendation that the policy document should clarify that existing resource holders will be able to still update their resources as previously.

Minutes

 

APNIC 16 hosted by
KRNIC
Last modified: Wednesday, 25-Mar-2009 12:25:01 EST | © 1999 - 2014 APNIC Pty. Ltd.
Contact us | Privacy statement