APNIC 17 home APNIC 17 home APNIC home

Minutes

SIG: Policy

Wednesday 25 - Thursday 26 February 2004, Palace of the Golden Horses, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Minutes

Meeting commenced: 2:00pm

Chair: Takashi Arano

The Chair introduced the SIG and explained the agenda.

Contents

  1. Open action items
  2. LIRs to manage multiple discrete networks under a single APNIC membership (prop-v013-001)
  3. IPv6 allocations to IPv4 networks (prop-016-v001)
  4. IPv6 allocations to closed networks (prop-015-v001)
  5. IPv6 guidelines document draft
  6. LIRs' IPv6 address space requirements
  7. Large space IPv4 trial usage program for future IPv6 deployment - activities update
  8. An introduction to Doug Barton
  9. Proposal to lower the IPv4 minimum allocation size and initial allocation criteria (prop-014-v001)
  10. Recovery of unused address space (prop-017-v001)
  11. NAT is evil
  12. Subsequent allocation criteria for DSL and cable
  1. Open action items

  2. Takashi Arano, Intec Netcore Inc

    Presentation [pdf | ppt]

    add-15-002: Secretariat to refer discussion of signing the DNS root to the DNS Operations SIG.
    Update: Closed.

    pol-16-001: The Chair will circulate the draft charter to the mailing list for further discussion.
    Update: Closed.

    pol-16-002: APNIC Secretariat to prepare implementation of policy development process proposal (prop-001-v001) as agreed, subject to final endorsement according to the policy development process.
    Update: Closed.

    pol-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.
    Update: Closed.

    pol-16-004: APNIC Secretariat to call for the formation of a working group to draft IPv6 guidelines.
    Update: Closed.

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

    pol-16-006: Chairs to initiate discussion on mailing list relating to preferred IANA to RIR IPv6 allocation size.
    Update: Closed.

    pol-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.
    Update: Closed.

    pol-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).
    Update: Open. The proposal has not been resubmitted. To be followed up with proposer to see if this should remain open.

    pol-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.
    Update: Closed.

    Top

  3. LIRs to manage multiple discrete networks under a single APNIC membership (prop-v013-001)

  4. Norman Hoy, MCI

    Presentation [pdf | ppt]

    This proposal suggested that organisations that have multiple memberships with APNIC should be allowed to aggregate APNIC memberships.

    The presenter explained that the problems with managing multiple memberships include managing different billing requirements throughout the year, which can lead to some member accounts accidentally being unpaid.

    Elements of the proposal include:

    • For an aggregated member to be allocated more address space, the member must have used more than 50 percent of the address space they have previously been allocated.
    • The 80 percent rule would still apply to assignments or sub-allocations by the member to customers.
    • The policy would be voluntary. It would reduce the workload of staff managing IP blocks.
    • LIR must keep detailed records of any blocks reserved for specific economies within their organisation.
    • Second opinion processes would still apply.
    • Fees would be assessed from the entire address range held by the aggregated member organisation. APNIC may need to think about adjusting the fee structure because of this.

    Questions and discussion

    • It was questioned if the proposal was requesting that an organisation with a single membership should be allowed to open up multiple allocation windows at their own discretion. The presenter stated that this was not the intention
    • A participant explained that the proposal could be extrapolated to split a network into possibly cities or smaller regions, which may not be beneficial to the overall routing system. The presenter acknowledged that if the proposal was used at levels as low as apartment blocks, it would be a problem.
    • It was noted that the proposal as it stands could be applied at a high level of granularity, leading to different allocation windows for each PoP. The presenter stated that he did not anticipate an organisation within a country having multiple memberships. and that the proposal is generally intended to apply to organisations working across multiple countries, rather than multiple PoPs.
    • There was a comment that the proposed policy may not be in the interests of all APNIC members.
    • A JPNIC representative explained that JPNIC has a similar approach, allowing a single membership for organisations with multiple ASs. Each network is given a separate account and has its utilisation considered independent from other networks. JPNIC has not experienced the types of problems suggested by others in this SIG
    • The presenter clarified that the proposal was suggesting 50 percent overall utilisation, and 80 percent for the specific network when requesting address space.
    • It was clarified that the proposal was suggesting that APNIC make direct allocations to the network as a whole and that LIR then makes sub-allocations to its regions. The JPNIC approach is different as it makes discrete allocations to each individual network.
    • It was noted that ARIN did implement a similar policy several years ago. The policy originally appeared to work quite well; however, there is now a concern that some members are creating artificial distinctions within their networks in order to avoid the 80 percent utilisation rule. It was also noted that this ARIN policy does not appear to have an effect on routing.
    • It was argued that this proposal highlights the tension at the administrative level between conservation and aggregation.
    • It was noted that this proposal appears to be aimed at easing problems with large networks. It was explained that at APNIC 16 there was another proposal that a modified HD ratio be applied to large allocation. It was suggested that the HD ratio proposal could be seen as alternative way of tackling the same problem.
    • It was noted that there had been no comments on the mailing list during the discussion period.
    • It was suggested that this proposal is different to the former confederation model, but that it may be subject to some of the same problems, particularly in how to define "multiple discrete networks".
    • It was argued that it is not appropriate to relate the administrative definition to the technical consideration of a multiple discrete network.
    • The proponent suggested reconsidering the proposal and working on the definition of "multiple discrete networks". There was a request that the proponent should also consider alternative methods of solving the problem, such as the HD ratio proposal.
    • There was a comment that multiple discreet networks should not be defined by an AS because an AS is used for specific technical routing issues.
    • It was suggested that the HD ratio proposal would allow the proposer to allocate address blocks into different areas and achieve utilisation. The speaker was unfamiliar with the HD ratio proposal and agreed to consider it when rewriting the proposal.

    Action items

    • pol-17-001: Proposer to resubmit a modified version of the proposal (prop-013-v001) to the mailing list. The rewritten proposal will define multiple discrete networks and consider the HD ratio for sub-allocating address blocks.

    Top

  5. IPv6 allocations to IPv4 networks (prop-016-v001)

  6. Paul Wilson, APNIC

    Presentation [pdf | ppt]

    This proposal examined the need to clarify the existing IPv6 policy document in regards to the consideration of existing IPv4 networks when making IPv6 allocations.

    Currently, the policy is not clearly stated and therefore is not used when making allocations. The speaker proposed changing sections 4.4 and 5.1.2 of APNIC-089 to clarify the requirements. The speaker presented example allocations that could be made using the clarified criteria.

    The presenter also suggested that the micro assignments section of RFC 3177 might need to be modified in light of the proposal.

    The presented noted that the feedback received on the SIG mailing list requested that some of the language of the proposal be amended and that the number of IPv4 customers also be counted. The presenter noted that the policy would require coordination with the other RIRs due to the global nature of the IPv6 document.

    Questions and discussion

    • There was a question as to whether the examples given in the proposal are simply guidelines, or whether the example assignment sizes would be required under the policy. It was explained that the examples were made to be consistent with the assignment sizes specified in the existing policy. However, it was explained that it would be justifiable for requestors to vary their actual assignment sizes from what they detailed in the plan.
    • It was suggested that the proposal may work against the original intention of the policy, which was to allocate a /32 to any network with an existing IPv4 network. It was commented that there was no concrete reason to use up the huge IPv6 blocks of space by mapping individual IPv4 networks to IPv6 networks.
    • It was noted that there is a problem with the use of the word "transition" as IPv4 and IPv6 will coexist for a long time. It was also argued that there is no necessary correlation between IPv6 allocation size and IPv4 utilisation. It was argued that in terms of both IPv4 and IPv6, networks should justify their needs and receive sufficient address space to meet those needs.
    • It was noted that the proposal is not to bind between a /32 to a /48, but to judge how much IPv6 address space is needed by a network currently using IPv4.
    • It was suggested that it may be necessary to consider how this proposal would apply to networks that are heavily using NATs.
    • A SIG participant commented that the policy should address the needs of the customer: if a customer needs address space, they should receive it; if not, they should not. The participant suggested that the proposal is too vague.
    • It was noted that the proposal seemed to give networks an additional choice when deciding how to apply for IPv6 allocations. For example, when operating a dual stack network and the network needs IPv6 addresses. But it was suggested that there needs to be a distinction between networks that have a plan for IPv6, and others that want IPv6 but have no current plan. It was suggested that this can perhaps be addressed in the guidelines document. It was also suggested that an option of a timeframe be included for networks wishing to use IPv6 at some time in the future. A suggested timeframe consistent with the existing IPv6 policy could be the transfer of 200 customers within two years.
    • It was suggested that allocations could be made on a basis of a projected need for a country. This is perhaps a different matter and could be discussed with the Chair after this session.
    • A RIPE representative noted the procedure for similar situation that occurred in the RIPE region. He explained that the hostmasters went through a process of evaluating the planned assignment patterns. The presenter confirmed that the proposal was trying to achieve to the same goal. The proposer explained that the difference between the RIPE situation and the current proposal is that RIPE NCC Hostmasters have gone through a process that is not defined in the policy, which means that other LIRs may not be aware they can do this.
    • There was a discussion about why RIRs allocate a large IPv6 block without a concrete plan. There were suggestions that existing allocation practices should make it possible to meet the needs of large ISPs. It was argued that this is based on a long-standing dissatisfaction with the slow start policy. It was also noted that if an organisation has a credible plan to exceed the need for a minimum allocation then there is no cause for real concern.
    • A Japanese participant explained that currently in Japan, most ISPs assign a home customer a /64 but that this proposal refers to a /48. There was a response that assigning a /64 to an end user was against IESG recommendations. It was suggested that maybe the examples should consider the case where /64s are assigned. The speaker agreed to this suggestion.
    • It was suggested that to be consistent with other parts of the policy, the proposal should also require a plan to transfer 200 of their IPv4 customers to IPv6 within 2 years.
    • There was a show of hands on the modified proposal. The Chair noted consensus to adopt the modified proposal.

    Action items

    • pol-17-002: Pending approval at each remaining stage of the policy proposal process, APNIC Secretariat to implement the proposal (prop-016-v001), with the modification that there is an added a requirement for LIRs to have plan to move some of their customers from IPv4 to within two years.

    Top

  7. IPv6 allocations to closed networks (prop-015-v001)

  8. Maemura Akinori, Chair, APNIC EC

    Presentation [pdf | ppt]

    This was a proposal to modify the existing APNIC-089 policy document to more clearly state that IPv6 allocations can be made to networks that are not connected to the global network.

    This proposal related to some problems caused by ambiguity in APNIC-089 in relation to whether private networks could be eligible for IPv6 allocations. It was noted that if the existing IPv6 policy is interpreted as not allowing allocations to private networks, then there is no other way of addressing such networks. This problem arises because there is no defined private address space in the IPv6 protocol.

    It was noted that APNIC Secretariat has made one such allocation to a private network.

    In response to the problem, the EC made an interim clarification notice to the effect that the Secretariat should continue to make such allocations. The notice also stated that the reference in the policy to announcing routes should be interpreted as including internal announcements.

    It is intended that this proposal should be implemented immediately and should be applicable to NIRs also. It is also intended that this issue will be coordinated with other RIRs.

    Questions and discussion

    • A SIG participant commented that he was not aware of the interim document and requested that such documents be announced on the mailing list in future. The Secretariat noted that although the document had been published, an administrative error meant that the announcement had not been made.
    • It was noted that in the ARIN region, there are currently two proposals that examine allocating unique IP addresses to private networks.
    • A RIPE NCC representative commented that in the RIPE region, there has only been one instance of a similar request for private IPv6. It was agreed that there does need to be some clarification in the document.
    • There was a comment that the IPv6 document is common across the RIRs and a suggestion that a second document be produced that clarifies the first.
    • It was suggested that if the common policy document is wrong, it should be updated for all regions rather than creating a second interpretive document.
    • There was a question from a participant querying the extent to which individual RIRs can have their own policy document.
    • A LACNIC representative noted that the LACNIC region had recently accepted a proposal for new IPv6 allocation criteria to address the specific needs of the LACNIC region.
    • There was a comment that some of the regional differences could be dealt with in the guidelines document which would be easier for coordination between the RIRs.
    • There was a review of the background of global policy coordination. It was noted that global policy has a special meaning in the ICANN processes and that policies such as the IPv6 document are to be considered a globally coordinated policy. It was explained that it is possible to have minor divergence while still having coordinated policy. It was suggested that the proposal should not be published in the guidelines document, but should be added to the core policy document.
    • It was suggested that Paul Wilson's earlier proposal and the current EC proposal should both follow a consistent path of development.
    • It was questioned whether the proposed policy should be documented in the APNIC policy document or at a global level.
    • It was suggested that APNIC should follow the policy process and return it to the mailing list, and use that time to coordinate with the RIRs. Once the proposal process is complete the policy should be published as an APNIC document, but global coordination on the policy should continue.
    • There was a show of hands on this proposal. The Chair observed consensus to adopt this proposal.

    Action items

    • pol-17-003: Pending approval at each remaining stage of the policy proposal process, APNIC Secretariat to implement the proposal to permit allocation of IPv6 address space to closed networks (prop-015-v001).

    Top

  9. IPv6 guidelines document draft

  10. Billy MH Cheon, KRNIC; Toshiyuki Hosaka, JPNIC; Akira Nakagawa, PoweredCom

    Presentation [pdf | ppt]

    This informational presentation summarised the draft of the IPv6 guidelines document that was produced by the ipv6-guidelines working group. These guidelines are designed to meet APNIC needs and are not intended to change any policies.

    It was noted that information on NAT was not included as it was not of assistance to those applying for allocations. The guidelines include clarification that sub-allocations do not need to follow the second opinion request procedure and that sub-allocated blocks are not considered for utilisation until assignments have been made from those blocks.

    The guidelines include information on the responsible parties for registration of reverse delegations and database objects. The working group is still to discuss /64 assignments, transit providers, and multinational companies. The next step is to ask the APNIC Secretariat to edit and publish the resulting document.

    Questions and discussion

    • It was clarified that the guidelines reflects current practice of APNIC.
    • There was a comment that the WG had produced a good piece of work in very short space of time. There was a suggestion that some of the issues discussed were more policy-based and perhaps could be sent to the policy SIG for the next APNIC meeting.
    • There was a comment that the section on database registration exists in IPv4 policy and in general database documentation so that perhaps it could be removed from the IPv6 guidelines.
    • There was a suggestion that the examples that Paul Wilson had included in his earlier proposal (relating to networks converting to IPv6) could be included in the guidelines.
    • There was a suggestion that the "residential subscribers should receive a /48" should be changed to "residential subscribers can receive a /48". It was explained that it was not the intention of the guideline to make the document that that residential subscribers "must receive /48".
    • It was suggested that the guidelines document should refer to the appropriate section of the policy document and the IETF recommendations.

    Action items

    • pol-17-004: APNIC Secretariat to edit the IPv6 guidelines document, post to the sig-policy mailing list for comments and to publish after review period.

    Top

  11. LIRs' IPv6 address space requirements

  12. Leo Vegoda, RIPE NCC

    Presentation [pdf]

    This presentation summarised recent experiences in the RIPE NCC of managing IPv6 address space and the possible effects that current practices may have on the routing system.

    Currently the RIPE NCC reserves 3 bits for every initial allocation.

    The presenter noted that the biggest users of IPv6 address space currently are the always on broadband networks.

    The presenter explained the methodology used to try to model future trends for IPv6 usage.

    The RIPE NCC investigation raised questions such as:

    • How many years should an RIR allocate for?
    • How many years should RIRs reserve space for?
    • How much growth in LIRs' allocations should be allowed for?

    Questions and discussion

    • It was noted that there are many new types of services coming up in Japan which may change the balance of the predictions made by the RIPE NCC.
    • It was suggested that although marketing plans are worth discussing, they should not be used to make policy. Currently there are no uses or applications that are really going to make IPv6 usage expand rapidly.
    • There was a comment that IPv6 usage was not only for the open Internet but also for private extranets.
    • There was a comment that the projections were based on /48 assignments to residential users, but in Japan /64 assignments were common. The speaker acknowledged that this was happening in Japan, but that this is not what is being seen in the RIPE region. The Chair requested that a representative of the Japanese community report at the next APNIC meeting on the reasons for making /64 assignments.

    Action items

    • None.

    Top

  13. Large space IPv4 trial usage program for future IPv6 deployment - activities update

  14. Kosuke Ito, IPv6 Promotion Council of Japan

    Presentation [pdf]

    This was an informational presentation which summarised the results of the latest interviews with participants in large space IPv4 trial usage program. The speaker noted that many of the speakers felt it was too early to return IPv4 addresses by the end of 2005, so the program may be extended to a later time to facilitate the move to IPv6.

    Questions and discussion

    • None.

    Action items

    • None.

    [Session adjourned 3:35 pm - recommenced 9:05 am Thursday 26 February]

    Top

  15. An introduction to Doug Barton

  16. Doug Barton, IANA

    This was an introduction by Doug Barton to the Asia Pacific Internet community. He is the new Manager of IANA. He mentioned specific IANA activities of interest to the community, including IPv6 glue for the DNS, and a new IPv6 allocation policy for IANA space delegated to RIRs. He encouraged attendees to ask him any questions while he was at the APNIC meeting.

    Questions and discussion

    • None.

    Action items

    • None.

    Top

  17. Proposal to lower the IPv4 minimum allocation size and initial allocation criteria (prop-014-v001)

  18. Anne Lord, APNIC

    Presentation [pdf | ppt]

    This was a proposal for lowering the minimum allocation size and the associated allocation criteria for obtaining that allocation. The proposal only applies to the initial allocation to an LIR and not to any subsequent allocations. The presenter noted that considerable feedback had been received from the community that there was a need for a lower allocation size and lower criteria for smaller ISPs that have been unable to qualify for APNIC allocations.

    The speaker presented data on the ratio of ISPs in the Asia Pacific region that are currently excluded from receiving APNIC allocations and the percentage of APNIC members that have not returned for subsequent allocations from APNIC.

    It was proposed that the minimum allocation be lowered to /21 and that the criteria be amended so that networks must demonstrate the use of a /23 from an upstream provider.

    The presenter discussed statistics showing the likely routing table effects of lowering the minimum allocation. The presenter noted that /24s continue to occupy the majority of the routing table and this is not likely to be effect by this proposal.

    The speaker noted that the fragmentation apparent in the routing table did not seem to be associated with the allocation size of RIRs, but rather with how LIRs were announcing that space after they had received the allocation.

    The speaker noted that there had been support from JPNIC and VNNIC on the mailing list for the proposal and outlined other comments received on the mailing list.

    Questions and discussion

    • There was a comment from an ARIN representative that there had been no proposal to reduce the minimum allocation size for all networks in the ARIN region, but there was consensus on a proposal to reduce the minimum prefix size available to multihomed networks to a /22 minimum. This has not yet been implemented.
    • There was clarification about the size of the subsequent allocation, querying whether it would be a /21 as well. The speaker clarified that there is no policy about the size of subsequent allocations. Subsequent allocations are dependent on the address consumption rate of the LIR and the planned network growth.
    • A representative from RIPE NCC noted that RIPE adopted a /21 minimum recently because the previous policy had led to prospective LIRs working hard to receive and use multiple portable assignments. This was considered to be a cumbersome process that served no strong purpose. He noted that 15 /21 allocations have been made since RIPE implemented the smaller allocation size policy on 1 January 2004.
    • There was a query as to whether the /21s would come from a specific block such as 202/8. It was reported that there was no specific block set aside but it would be important to publicise which block the /21s would be announced from.
    • There was a show of hands. The Chair noted that consensus had been achieved to adopt this proposal.

    Action items

    • pol-17-005: Pending approval at each remaining stage of the policy proposal process, secretariat to implement the proposal to reduce the minimum initial allocation size to /21 and to lower the criteria for an initial allocation to demonstrate an immediate need for a /23 and use of a /22 within one year (prop-014-v001).

    Top

  19. Recovery of unused address space (prop-017-v001)

  20. Paul Wilson, APNIC

    Presentation [pdf | ppt]

    This presentation proposed that APNIC begin to take action to recovery unused historical address space.

    The presenter clarified the definitions of terms used in the proposal, such as "historical", "unrouted", and "unused".

    The presenter noted that currently 42 /8s (36 percent of total allocated address space) is unrouted and that much of it is likely to be completely unused. The majority of this unused space is "historical". The presenter noted that early address allocations were made under RFC 2050, which required that allocations be made on the basis that they would be routed.

    The presenter noted that APNIC has a total amount of historical space that is the equivalent of 2.8 /8s. The presenter noted that there was no immediate need for the policy, but that the proposal was looking to make provisions for the future so that recovered historical space could eventually be reallocated by RIRs.

    There is currently enough IPv4 address space that can still be allocated without needing to access the recovered historical address blocks.

    The presenter outlined the operational steps of the proposal: a list of top level parent block is obtained, the RIS is consulted to determine if the address space is routed, and attempts are made to contact the resource holder of unrouted address space to inform them of the plan to reclaim the space. The resource holder then has a range of options available to them. If they agree to the reclamation, the address block would be marked as such. The speaker noted that APNIC has no legal way to force resource holders to return address space. APNIC would inform the Internet community of reclaimed address blocks. The speaker noted that due to the ramifications for the Internet community, it may be worth extending the two month comment period if the proposal is accepted.

    Questions and discussion

    • It was noted that although there are contiguous /8s that are unrouted, most of the unused address space exists in smaller, discontiguous ranges.
    • There was a comment that the word "reclaimed" was inappropriate. It was noted that there is the possibility of legal problems if address space is reclaimed without consent of the address holder. It was suggested that a reclamation would probably be reversed if the address holder disputed the reclamation. It was argued that some of the existing address holders would only notice that their address space has been reclaimed when it is reallocated to someone else who seeks to route it.
    • The speaker noted that the reallocation of the reclaimed space was an issue that would have to be discussed in the future.
    • There was a question about the operational costs to members of undertaking this work. It was clarified that if the recovery had to take place urgently then the costs would be a concern. However, the intention of this proposal is to automate the process as much as possible to allow easy administration. There are also existing systems that have been developed in APNIC that could be applied to this process.
    • It was noted that there has been feedback in Japan about the unfairness of the situation where historical address space is not subject to the same rules and fees as current allocations. On this basis, JPNIC supports the proposal.
    • It was noted that this proposal was important in many other areas such as registration and membership. This is an issue that needs to be addressed.
    • There was a discussion of current address space consumption. On current consumption rates, the unused space could provide approximately 10 years of additional allocations. On a model of exponential growth, the amount of extra time recovery would achieve is approximately 3 years, which would not necessarily be worth the effort.
    • It was noted that conservation is not the only issue at stake. There is also a problem of abuse coming from historical address space that is officially unused.
    • There was a show of hands. The Chair noted that there was consensus to adopt this proposal.

    Action items

    • pol-17-006: Pending approval at each remaining stage of the policy proposal process, APNIC Secretariat to implement the proposal to recover unused address space (prop-017-v001).

    Top

  21. NAT is evil

  22. Randy Bush, IIJ

    Presentation [pdf]

    This was an informational presentation which explained the function of NAT (Network Address Translation) and the problems it can cause.

    The presenter noted the idea of an end-to-end network, the devices in the middle need not be changed to deal with new applications. The design of the Internet is to keep the core very simple and apply the smart services at the edges. However in some protocols, there are addresses embedded in a payload. This means that a good NAT must understand the applications and translate the embedded addresses. The presenter noted that any new killer application for the Internet would be difficult to deploy under NAT.

    The presenter discussed the technical problems created by NAT. He also noted that NATs of themselves do not enhance security. He reviewed the reasons people use NAT, including the false perception that RIRs require it, that it is difficult for large ISPs to do customer by customer need-based allocations, and the reluctance of large carriers to provide space to small ISPs.

    The speaker explained that it is possible to un-NAT networks and that this would encourage the deployment of IPv6 by increasing consumption of address space.

    Questions and discussion

    • Comment that the reasons people deploy NATs is varied. Many networks are now assuming that packets at the edge are hostile. Firewalls and traditional methods assume the opposite. The presenter suggested fixing the actual problem with firewalls and not seeking temporary fixes such as NAT.
    • It was noted that it is hard to find out how many addresses are actually behind NATs. There has been some research that seems to show that approximately half the network is behind NATs and that they are a big part of the current Internet landscape. It was suggested that if developers have a new application, they should make it NAT agile rather than NAT incompatible. The problem is that users may be using technology from today that can't cope with the applications of tomorrow. It is the end to end approach that has let new applications be deployed in the past.
    • It was suggested that rather than preventing use of NAT, it is better to make it easy for people to go without it, by giving networks the addresses they need and improving firewalls and other security measures.

    Action items

    • None.

    Top

  23. Subsequent allocation criteria for DSL and cable

  24. Mars Wei, NCIC, on behalf of Yi Lee

    This was an informational presentation suggesting modification of the guidelines for subsequent allocation criteria for cable/DSL users.

    The presenter noted that in Taiwan there have been problems arising because the policy only takes into account subscribers and not actual total need. It was noted that many subscribers now have more than one computer and require multiple IP addresses. Current one-to-one convention used leaves no room for dynamic IP assignment. The presenter proposed updates to the guidelines document.

    Questions and discussion

    • A representative from JPNIC expressed support for the proposal.
    • There was a comment that the presentation was informational, so any changes should be included in the guideline document.
    • JPNIC requested that any decision be deferred to allow them time to ask their members for input.
    • There was consensus to discuss the issue further in the mailing list.

    Action items

    • pol-17-007: Proposer to call for the creation of a working group and volunteers to develop modified guidelines for Cable and DSL networks in the IPv4 Guidelines Document.

    Top

Meeting closed: 12:45 pm

Minuted by: Sam Dickinson

Open action items

  • pol-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).
    Update: Open. The proposal has not been resubmitted. To be followed up with proposer to see if this should remain open.

  • pol-17-001: Pending approval at each remaining stage of the policy proposal process, proposer to resubmit a modified version of the proposal (prop-013-v001) to the mailing list. The rewritten proposal will define multiple discreet networks and consider the HD ratio for sub-allocating address blocks.

  • pol-17-002: Pending approval at each remaining stage of the policy proposal process, Secretariat to implement the proposal (prop-016-v001), with the modification that there is an added a requirement for LIRs to have plan to move some of their customers from IPv4 to within two years.

  • pol-17-003: Pending approval at each remaining stage of the policy proposal process, APNIC Secretariat to implement the proposal to permit allocation of IPv6 address space to closed networks (prop-015-v001).

  • pol-17-004: APNIC Secretariat to edit the IPv6 guidelines document, post to the sig-policy mailing list for comments and to publish after review period.

  • pol-17-005: Pending approval at each remaining stage of the policy proposal process, secretariat to implement the proposal to reduce the minimum initial allocation size to /21 and to lower the criteria for an initial allocation to demonstrate an immediate need for a /23 and use of a /22 within one year (prop-014-v001).

  • pol-17-006: Pending approval at each remaining stage of the policy proposal process, APNIC Secretariat to implement the proposal to recover unused address space (prop-017-v001).

  • pol-17-007: Secretariat to call for volunteers of a new working group to review the current DSL/cable guidelines in the document "APNIC guidelines for IPv4 allocation and assignment requests".

Minutes


 
Top of page

Programme | HM consultation | EC election | Social event | Sponsorship | Past meetings | APRICOT 2004 | APNIC 17 home | APNIC home

Last modified: Thursday, 08-Nov-2007 12:34:42 EST | © 1999 - 2014 APNIC Pty. Ltd.
Contact us | Privacy statement