______________________________________________________________________ DRAFT TRANSCRIPT SIG: Policy Date: Thursday 2 March 2006 Time: 9.00am Presentation: IP policy update - Comparative status in all RIR regions Presenter: Save Vocea ______________________________________________________________________ KENNY HUANG: OK, the next presenter is Save. The topic is, 'IP policy update - comparative status in all RIR regions'. SAVE VOCEA: Good morning. My name is Save Vocea. I'm the Policy Development Manager at APNIC. This is a presentation we give at APNIC policy meetings as an update to share with the community what has been happening in APNIC in terms of policy development and also look at all the other Regional Internet Registry status. If you subscribe to the mailing list, you would have known that in November 2005, the APNIC EC endorsed the following policies. These policies are globally coordinated with the other RIRs. The IANA policy for allocation of IPv6 blocks to the RIRs. And also proposal 31, version 2, which deals with the increase of the HD-ratio from 0.8 to 0.94. The deprecation of the ip6.int reverse DNS service is also being coordinated with the other RIRs to have a succession date in June 2006. This is a snapshot of the current policy proposals and Kenny also mentioned the URL. One thing I'd like to point out is what is discussed in the previous policy meeting is the application of HD-ratio to IPv4. It's to apply the HD-ratio because there were concerns from the community. It was felt that some of the ISPs in the region had difficulty satisfying the 80% rule. I will bring up the slides later for discussion after my presentation so I won't talk much into it but in the other RIRs, the RIPE region is in the last call. But the discussions were abandoned in LACNIC and ARIN. As you will know, in today's Open Policy Meeting, there has been only one policy proposal and that's by Geoff Huston. He will talk to it after my presentation, so I will not talk much to it as well because I'll leave it to Geoff. But when it was discussed in the APNIC mailing list, there had been no comments from the APNIC community, so that's just what I'd like to share here. In the other RIRs, it's also undergoing the discussion phase and it will be presented in their respective Open Policy Meetings. I'd like to share now the status in the other RIRs in terms of all the IP resources in IPv4, v6, ASN numbers. As I've already mentioned earlier, about the application of HD-ratio to v4 allocations, I will discuss it again later, after this - at the end of my presentation. But, at the RIPE region, it's in its concluding phase and next week, I think, it's the final date. In the LACNIC region, there is discussion that's undergoing about the additional allocation to regional ISPs at 50% utilisation. They felt that some regional ISPs - it's hard for them to reach 80% and they had to allocate again to their members so they're thinking of having a policy to provide some allocation at 50%. There is an address space for anycast services under discussion at the RIPE and ARIN Region. And again, also in the ARIN region, they have adopted the address space for multiple discrete networks. This was abandoned in APNIC in the last APNIC meeting. ARIN has adopted a global addresses for private network interconnectivity and in the AfriNIC region, they are having new policies to the current policies which is the end-user assignment and also the temporary address assignments for experimental purposes and these are awaiting the board approval. When we look at the IPv6 status in other regions, as we mentioned in the HD-ratio to 0.94, it had been endorsed in the APNIC region, it's also adopted in the ARIN community and in the RIPE community, it's under discussion. There was no consensus by APNIC at the last APNIC meeting to adopt changing the end-users' address space from 0.4 it 0.56 but it's under discussion in the ARIN and RIPE region. Also mentioned earlier that the IPv6 blocks from IANA to RIRs is under discussion in all regions and had been endorsed in APNIC, ARIN and LACNIC. RIPE is discussing the address space for anycast services and this topic here, the PI assignments for endsite, which is portable assignments for a region, is being discussed by ARIN. It's one of the hot topics in the ppml mailing list and, as a matter of fact, they're having discussions in the IAB panel next door, as Leslie just mentioned. When we look at the ASNs, the 4-byte AS number is being discussed in all regions. And AfriNIC had made some changes to their ASN assignment criteria and it's under discussion. For the DNS, also, the deprecation of ip6.int reverse DNS service has been endorsed by APNIC EC and as it's being globally coordinated, the succession date for that is 6 June 2006. There is a DNSSEC reverse tree that's been implemented in the RIPE region. And that's where all the policy proposals, references are (refers to slide). Thank you. SANJAYA: The date is not 6th of June. It's 1st of June. SAVE VOCEA: Yes. Sorry. KENNY HUANG: OK, any questions or comments? OK, thank you, Save. SAVE VOCEA: As I mentioned earlier in my presentation, I wanted to put this up and seek facilitation from the SIG chairs and whatever actions can be taken from this Open Policy Meeting on the proposal on the application of HD-ratio to IPv4. It was first discussed in APNIC 18 and no clear decision was made. But APNIC Secretariat was requested to conduct a survey with all the LIRs and also got assistance from the NIRs. The survey was shared in APNIC 20 and what we said was that there was no proof of correlation between the problems, network size and complexity or the number of services and levels of hierarchy. Also, when it was put back to the mailing list after that last meeting, there was really no further support expressed. And, as I said, the last call - it's in its last call at the RIPE region. It had been abandoned in the LACNIC and ARIN region. So if you could just maybe seek the chair's facilitation in this for today. GERMAN VALDEZ: Just for a few comments about the policy of HD-ratio for IPv4. Following the discussions in the region that Save described and, from LACNIC perspective, and from some members in the region, we are following this with some concerns because the understanding and the comments made in LACNIC list reflects that this proposal, if it's approved in one region it can have an impact in the rate of consumption of IPv4 in general. So the impact on the decision of one region can reflect in other parts of the world. Even though we are worried about this, these discussions, we don't want to influence in other decision processes in other Regional Internet Registries but we only ask for you - the discussions take into account all the variables involved in this, in this proposal. That's my comment. KENNY HUANG: OK, thank you. Geoff. GEOFF HUSTON: I was asked a couple of weeks ago by the RIPE NCC to do an investigation of the impacts of this policy in the RIPE region in terms of its impact on total address consumption of the remaining /8s in the unallocated pool. What I did was actually look at the last five years of allocations from all of the RIRs and look at their distribution in size. So you get the sort of lots of /20s, a few /19s and so on. And then I went back and said, "Well, these allocations have been performed on the basis of an 80% utilisation," so you can actually do a spread of populations. You randomly pick a population that would have qualified for a /20 and so on. I simulated an RIR doing 10,000 allocations, each RIR doing 10,000 allocations using that principle and ran that experiment a further thousand times. So I felt I had a relatively good range of, you know, this is what the last five years looked like in demand. And then I said, "Well, instead of using an 80% fixed utilisation, what would have been the result had this policy been implemented?" So for the RIPE region, at a 0.96 HD-ratio, the impacts are felt on the large applications and they're significant. The address consumption rate of the RIPE NCC, had it been using that allocation strategy for the last five years, was a total increase in address consumption for the same range of populations that they were servicing by 47%. So, in other words, rather than allocating three /8s, you would have got through approximately 4.5 for the same population. If this proposal was adopted in the APNIC region, it's 49%. Now, the LACNIC issue is, in some ways, significant, and should be borne in mind; that, if RIPE adopted this all by itself and none of the other RIRs did, then this does have an impact on consumption rates and would bring in this expected date when we're going to run out by approximately one year. If all of the RIRs adopted this policy today, it would bring in that date by two years because, in particular, RIPE and APNIC would have effectively 50% more addresses being released for the same populations. So, when you, as a community, look at this particular policy proposal, I think this is a useful statistic to bear in mind - that its impact is not just, if you will, adjusting the address allocations to suit what we think the industry structure is, but we should be mindful of precisely what we're doing in terms of consumption rates and the basic message is that for those RIRs - and there are three - ARIN is included - that have a sizeable percentage, significant percentage of high allocations, the total allocation consumption increases significantly. I believe I posted this to the APNIC policy mailing list, copies have also been posted to the RIPE and the ARIN mailing list and, yes, I have discussed this with the LACNIC folk. It's hard to actually mirror the LACNIC implications here, but certainly inside this framework, LACNIC might, if you will, not be able to get one or two /8 s near the end of the period of exhaustion, so, yes, there are cross-RIR impacts here that we need to be mindful of. SAVE VOCEA: Thank you, Geoff. Paul. PAUL WILSON: I've got a question for Geoff, actually. When this policy was first formulated, I think we had 15 to 18 years of IPv4 address supply available and according to the projections - not predictions, but projections - that are done, what is it today? GEOFF HUSTON: January 6, 2012. PAUL WILSON: Wow. RANDY BUSH: What time? LAUGHTER PAUL WILSON: Instead of 15 to 18 years, there's been an exponential growth and it's now seven years. GEOFF HUSTON: What has happened in the last couple of years, Paul, is actually the unadvertised pool of addresses - stuff that's been allocated that I can't see in the routing table - over the last few years, that amount of black space has been increasing rather than decreasing and that's had a dramatic effect on the total consumption rates because, if we're not actually managing to recycle addresses and we're feeding this black space, then the anticipated date of IANA exhaustion comes screaming in and, yes, we do have a relatively short period, using current industry behaviour, of the remaining lifetime of those 61 /8s. RANDY BUSH: This discussion drifted over to - I think it was the ARIN ppml list or NANOG or something, and there was discussion that, "Oh, so what's happened is you're fitting a log to a linear so it's going to be bad at the high end so let's change it so it works at the high end," and then, of course, what happens is that, at the low end, it doesn't work. Essentially, you're trying to fit a log to a linear. It does not work, OK? In either case, it is the small people, the people with small requests, who get short stick. So it's either the large requests get more than they need, which disenfranchises the small people as we run out of resources, or you tilt it the other way to make the large come out the same and the small people get less than they need. It does not work. You're trying to fit a log to a linear. KENNY HUANG: OK, thank you, Randy. Any questions or comments? OK, regarding to this open action actually is pending for quite a while and we probably need to decide how to move to the next step. And either we have some consensus from the meeting of either we submit a proposal or we remain submitted to the mailing list to wait another month and then we make a decision after that. OK, I suggest we move the issue to discuss in the mailing list for another one month and, after one month, the SIG chair will decide what to at the next step - either pending a proposal, continue the proposal or abandon the proposal. OK. Thank you. Sorry, any objections? OK, right. Thank you.