Minutes

Policy SIG

Thursday 24 February 2005, Kyoto International Conference Hall

Meeting commenced: 9:05 am

Chair: Takashi Arano

Co-chairs: Kenny Huang and Toshiyuki Hosaka

Co-chair Kenny Huang (KH) introduced the session and explained the agenda.

Contents

  1. Review of open action items
  2. The second phase of large space IPv4 trial usage program for future IPv6 deployment [prop-027-v001]
  3. Expanded address allocation for private Internets
  4. An update on 'Unique local IPv6 unicast addresses'
  5. Status update on policy implementation at APNIC Secretariat
  6. IANA IPv6 policy for allocation of IPv6 blocks to RIRs - status update
  7. IANA to RIR IPv6 allocation
  8. Update on the IPv4 guidelines working group
  9. LIR survey - project update
  10. A survey of ISPs in Taiwan for applying HD ratio to IPv4
  11. Election of new chair
  12. Open action items
  1. Review of open action items

  2. Kenny Huang

    Presentation [ppt | pdf]

    The Chair reviewed the open action items

    • 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.

    • Update (APNIC18): The Secretariat has discussed this with UUNET, who report that they wish to keep the proposal open, however the original proposer is no longer with UUNET.
      Update (APNIC19): Closed. The proposer wished to withdraw this proposal.

    • 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).

    • Update (APNIC18): This is in the process of being implemented and is expected to be completed by the middle of December 2004.
      Update (APNIC19): Done.
    • pol-18-001: Secretariat, with assistance from NIRs, to conduct a survey of ISPs’ resource management practices, to allow better analysis of the issues.

    • Update (APNIC19): Ongoing.
    • pol-18-002: Pending approval at each remaining stage of the policy proposal process, APNIC Secretariat to implement the proposal to expand IPv6 address space for existing IPv6 address holders, on the basis of a deployment plan or with IPv4 infrastructure, without satisfying the subsequent allocation requirements (prop-021-v001).

    • Update (APNIC19): Done.
    • pol-18-003: Pending approval at each remaining stage of the policy proposal process, APNIC Secretariat to refer this proposal (relating to IANA IPv6 allocations) to the mailing list and to other RIRs, with the advice that the APNIC region has accepted the proposal in principle but remains flexible to the specific details of the main parameters.

    • Update (APNIC19): Done.

    Top

  3. The second phase of large space IPv4 trial usage program for future IPv6 deployment [prop-027-v001]

  4. Kosuke Ito and Yoshiyuki Ezura, IPv6 Promotion Council of Japan

    Presentation [pdf]

    This is a proposal to extend the current large space trial usage program that has been operating since 2001. The trial was authorised during APNIC 11 to use an existing pool of IPv4 address space to provide an environment that would encourage deployment of IPv6 and development of IPv6 services and applications. Since the trial commenced, there have been regular status updates at each APNIC meeting.

    The presenter noted that the program has achieved quick deployment of less expensive, always on connectivity broadband services for home users. It has also helped deployment of area-wide wireless LAN services, and new value-added services, such as fixed IP addresses, VoIP, and content delivery services.

    However, there have been some goals that have not yet been achieved. It has been discovered that real IPv6 deployed services are not sufficient for the participants to give up their IPv4 address space. The reality is that providers are now deploying IPv6 services in a dual stack way.

    It is now proposed to extend this trial by three years to the end of 2008. It is still intended to return the currently deployed IPv4 address space to the public pool at the end of the trial. Participants will be required to provide an IPv6 service starting plan. This trial is intended to promote a smooth shift to IPv6 deployment.

    Questions and discussion

    • It was commented that there is a need for a firm contractual requirement that IPv4 addresses will be returned. It was confirmed that this will be done. It was clarified that the trial has not come across any IPv6 address availability problems.
    • It was noted that in the interests of fairness, there is a need to ensure that the full /8 block is returned to the public pool and that the holders of the space comply with the ordinary public address policy framework.
    • The Co-chair (KH) called for a show of hands on the proposal. The presenter again summarised that this is a proposal to extend the trial until 2008 and impose the following conditions on participants: an IPv6 service starting plan; return of IPv4 address space by the end of 2008; regular public reporting; and conclusion of agreements describing the conditions.
    • It was suggested that the use of IPv4 addresses provides application developers with no motivation to create IPv6 services. It was explained that the nature of the trial is to encourage a smooth shift to IPv6.
    • The Co-chair (KH) again called for a show of hands on the proposal and noted consensus in favour of the proposal.

    Action items

    • pol-19-001: The proposal to continue the second phase of the large space IPv4 trial usage program for future IPv6 deployment (prop-027-v001) to be reported at AMM to seek consensus at the next stage of the policy development process.

    Top

  5. Expanded address allocation for private Internets

  6. Tony Hain, Cisco

    Presentation [ppt | pdf]

    The presenter noted that an Internet Draft has been prepared to deal with the problem faced by some companies in finding limitations in the private address space available in RFC1918. The presenter noted that certain business sensitivities restrict the level of case detail that can be divulged.

    The presenter noted that an alternative is to get rid of private space and explicitly state that private networks are able to use public address space. It was also suggested that reducing the scrutiny of deployments may also help to reduce the problem.

    Questions and discussion

    • It was noted that there is a long history of technical problems caused by IPv4 private space. It was suggested that using public address space would solve the problem and that this is one of the main things that IPv6 was created for.
    • It was suggested that the reluctance to share details of business practices is understandable but common. Nevertheless, all other networks are required to work in the same way and the RIRs adopt confidentiality agreements and other practices to accommodate this need. It was also noted that the secrecy surrounding those asking for this change undermines their own case. It was noted that the people asking for the change are actually current RIR members who feel that they have already done as much as they are able to do within the current system.
    • There was another comment that there are many organisations around the world that are very reckless with the space they have and that better management practices and greater focus on IPv6 deployment would be preferable to expanding private address space.

    Action items

    • None.

    Top

  7. An update on 'Unique local IPv6 unicast addresses'

  8. Geoff Huston, APNIC

    Presentation [pdf]

    This was an update on the development of a proposal to provide unique local unicast addresses, to be used in /48 prefixes. These prefixes would be self selected using random selection processes. The prefixes are not intended to be globally routed and the prefixes will not be aggregatable. It was noted that this concept would help companies avoid the need to renumber their internal networks whenever they change providers. These addresses would be independent of any provider-based addresses.

    The presenter described the address structure and discussed the selection process, which requires no registration. It was noted that all previous references in the draft to a common registration service have been removed. The document "draft-IETF-IPv6-unique-local-addr-09.txt" is now the only active document dealing with these addresses.

    The centrally assigned, registry-based local addresses are no longer under active consideration.

    Questions and discussion

    • It was noted that there is so much IPv6 address space that discussion should be about policy to ensure it is easy enough to get, rather than creating further "kludges". It was noted that in APNIC policy, it is possible to use public IPv6 address space in private networks. However, this is not a policy proposal, but an IETF initiative. It was argued that this is a case of the IETF again becoming involved in policy.
    • It was stressed that the APNIC allocation policy does not require that requestors be a globally routed public provider.
    • It was noted that this may result in the use of IPv6 NATs to try to get into the public network. Again, it was argued that this proposal is an attempt to fix a problem that doesn’t exist.
    • There was a question about the chances of address clash. It was noted that the likelihood of two people receiving the same prefixes is very low, and the likelihood of clashes in the public Internet is even lower. However, there is definitely no guarantee of uniqueness in these addresses.
    • It was noted that there is a need to balance hierarchical addressing schemes with the principle that everyone could go to the RIRs to get space for these purposes.
    • There was a comment that people should stop trying to solve routing and filtering problems by turning them into addressing problems.
    • There was a comment that people are likely to simply grab the first part of the block, rather than bothering to use a random selection algorithm.

    Action items

    • None.

    Top

  9. Status update on policy implementation at APNIC Secretariat

  10. Son Tran, APNIC

    Presentation [ppt | pdf]

    The presenter first reviewed the details of the policy development process.

    The presentation contained the details of the following proposals which have been implemented:

    • [prop-018-v010] "Protecting historical resource records in whois"
    • [prop-007-v001] "Privacy of customer assignment records"
    • [prop-004-v001] "Lame delegation cleanup"
    • [prop-021-v001] "Expansion of the initial allocation space for existing IPv6 address space holders"

    The presentation also contained the details of the following proposals which are yet to be implemented:

    • [prop-017-v001] "Recovery of historical resources"
    • [prop-008-v001] "IANA IPv4 request procedures"

    Questions and discussion

    • It was noted that the form for submitting proposals should be amended to include a CC field.

    Action items

    • pol-19-002: Secretariat to amend the policy submission form to include a CC field.

    [Break 10:30 – 11:00 am]

    Co-chair Toshiyuki Hosaka (TH) introduced the next session and reminded participants of the Onsite Notice Board.

    Top

  11. IANA IPv6 policy for allocation of IPv6 blocks to RIRs – status update

  12. Anne Lord, APNIC

    Presentation [ppt | pdf]

    The document [prop-005-v004] "IANA IPv6 policy for allocation of IPv6 blocks to Regional Internet Registries" proposes that IANA should allocate to RIRs in /12 minimum blocks and should allocate for 36 months.

    In the ARIN region, a similar proposal was presented at the last ARIN meeting. There was much discussion, but no overall consensus, although there was agreement that there is a need for larger IANA allocations. The presenter reviewed the details of the ARIN proposal.

    In the RIPE region, a proposal based on the APNIC proposal was introduced in the mailing list and discussed at RIPE 49. There was no overall consensus, but again a need was recognised for larger IANA allocations.

    In the LACNIC region, a similar proposal has been introduced but has not yet reached the stage of seeking consensus.

    AfriNIC have posted the proposal to their policy lists and it is expected to be discussed at the next AfriNIC meeting.

    The NRO has prepared a draft document attempting to incorporate the consensus achieved so far. This document will be presented and discussed in all regions. The presenter noted that flexibility may be needed in order to achieve global consensus and move the policy forward.

    Questions and discussion

    • None.

    Action items

    • None.

    Top

  13. IANA to RIR IPv6 allocation

  14. Ray Plzak, ARIN

    Presentation [ppt | pdf]

    This was presented on behalf of the five RIRs working together (including AfriNIC, which has now received provisional recognition).

    The presenter reviewed the details of the draft NRO document proposing a policy for IANA to RIR IPv6 allocations. Under this draft, “available space” is considered to be free space, plus reservations expiring within three months, minus the fragmented space. “Necessary space” is a calculation of the six-month allocation rate multiplied by the time period. The presenter also described the likely cases of special needs justifications that may be presented to IANA.

    Under this proposal, there would be an 18 month necessary space consideration and a /12 minimum. New RIRs would receive /12. Additional space would be available if the available space is less than 50 percent of a /12 block or if the available space is less than a nine-month necessary space need.

    Questions and discussion

    • None.

    Action items

    • None.

    Top

  15. Update on the IPv4 guidelines working group

  16. Yi Lee, New Century InfoComm Tech Co., Ltd., Digital United Inc.

    Presentation [pdf]

    The presenter noted that his co-presenter, Mars Wei, apologised for being unable to attend.

    This presentation is a follow-up to a proposal at APNIC 17 to modify the guidelines for subsequent allocations to cable and DSL networks. The problem is that the way the current guidelines consider the number of subscribers may not reflect the actual need. The working group now wishes to include support for DSL services and add consideration of IP-based utilisation.

    The working group proposes the following changes:

    • Add B-RAS as a head end device to be considered in DSL service, as a more accurate term for xDSL service.
    • Add IP utilisation as an option to consider in determining past growth rate and add RADIUS/DHCP log as support information.
    • Add the subscribed DSL/cable circuits and consumed IP utilisation as options for projecting need.

    Questions and discussion

    • None.

    Action items

    • pol-19-003: Secretariat to amend and publish current IPv4 subsequent allocation criteria guidelines.

    Top

  17. LIR survey - project update

  18. Anne Lord, APINC

    Presentation [ppt | pdf]

    At APNIC 18, the Secretariat was tasked to conduct a survey of LIRs’ experience of resource management practices to allow a better understanding of issues faced by LIRs in trying to achieve 80 percent utilisation.

    In IPv4, 80 percent utilisation is required to qualify for an additional allocation. There is no allowance for hierarchical structures that are required in large networks, although the IPv6 policy makes this allowance by using the HD ratio.

    Therefore, there has been a proposal to adopt a modified use of the HD ratio in IPv4 address policy. However, it was felt that more information was required before this issue could be resolved.

    The APNIC Secretariat has now developed a draft questionnaire, with assistance from NIRs, in particular, TWNIC, which has conducted a similar survey. Feedback on the survey is now being received, and a final draft will then be prepared. The survey will then be translated and circulated and responses will be analysed and the analysis will be published.

    The draft survey is designed to be qualitative and will be conducted with the assistance of face-to-face interviews. It will also include asking respondents to provide diagrams of their network architecture.

    The presenter asked for volunteers to help provide feedback on the draft survey.

    Questions and discussion

    • None.

    Action items

    • None.

    Top

  19. A survey of ISPs in Taiwan for applying HD ratio to IPv4

  20. David Chen, TWNIC

    Presentation [ppt | pdf]

    The presentation was a report on a survey that TWNIC has already conducted on IPv4 address management practices. It was conducted to help introduce the concept of the HD ratio within Taiwan and to help identify any problems caused by the 80 percent utilisation policy.

    The presentation contains a detailed summary of the results of the survey, which received valid responses from 35 of the 55 LIRs contacted. The presentation also contains the questions asked as part of the survey, which was designed to produce quantitative data.

    The survey found that holders of less than /18 prefer to keep the 80 percent rule, but holders of more than /14 greatly prefer the HD ratio. The survey also found that the effect of new services is very high on holders of more than /12. When fragmentation occurs, the main causes (in order) are marketing, administration or management problems, and equipment limits.

    Questions and discussion

    • It was noted that smaller ISPs are in favour of the 80 percent rule, while the larger ISPs are in favour of the HD ratio. It was explained that the proposed HD ratio value is of more benefit to large ISPs, because smaller ISPs have not really reported problems with reaching 80 percent utilisation.
    • There was a comment that this is an excellent survey that has been well conducted and presented.

    Action items

    • None.

    Top

  21. Election of new chair

  22. It was explained that Takashi Arano is now stepping down from the role of Chair of the Policy SIG. The APNIC Secretariat expressed its gratitude to Takashi Arano for his excellent service to the APNIC policy development process.

    There has been an open call for volunteers to nominate to fill this role. The only nominee is Kenny Huang, who was appointed unopposed to the role of Chair.

    There will be a subsequent process to elect a new Co-chair.

    Questions and discussion

    • None.

    Action items

    • pol-19-004: Secretariat to initiate process to elect a new Co-chair of the Policy SIG.

Meeting closed: 12:10 pm

Minuted by: Gerard Ross

Top

Open action items

  • pol-18-001: Secretariat, with assistance from NIRs, to conduct a survey of ISPs’ resource management practices, to allow better analysis of the issues.

    • Update (APNIC19): Ongoing.
  • pol-19-001: The proposal to continue the second phase of the large space IPv4 trial usage program for future IPv6 deployment (prop-027-v001) to be reported at AMM to seek consensus at the next stage of the policy development process.

  • pol-19-002: Secretariat to amend the policy submission form to include a CC field.

  • pol-19-003: Secretariat to amend and publish current IPv4 subsequent allocation criteria guidelines.

  • pol-19-004: Secretariat to initiate process to elect a new Co-chair of the Policy SIG.

Minutes | Policy SIG


Top of page
Programme | SIGs | Sponsorship | APNIC meetings | APRICOT 2005 | APNIC home
Last modified: Friday, 07-Dec-2007 11:26:46 EST | © 1999 - 2014 APNIC Pty. Ltd.
Contact us | Privacy statement