APNIC Home APNIC Home

APNIC Annual Member Meeting 2000

Discussion Document: Current NIR Address Request Process - Overview and Proposal

DRAFT v1.2

Abstract

The existing procedures for National Internet Registries (NIRs) to follow when requesting a block of additional address space from APNIC have been in place for three years and have served the needs of both NIRs and ISP confederations. Given that the membership structures for allocating address space by these two entities is fundamentally different, the use of a single form and set of procedures has always been problematic. With the recent separation of confederations into NIRs and ISP confederations, it is now appropriate to re-examine these procedures and to consider a review of the address request form. Specifically, this paper examines the request process for NIRs. It is expected that any changes to the existing process will be subject to careful and thorough review by all NIRs. This paper makes some specific recommendations but does not redefine the current request form. A framework for undertaking this on an ongoing basis is expected as an outcome of the NIR meeting at APRICOT 2000 on 1 March.

Current procedures

To request an additional allocation of address space, NIRs currently complete a 'Confederation Address Request' form (APNIC-075 ftp://ftp.apnic.net/apnic/docs/confed-address-request). This form was designed to cater for both NIRs and ISP confederations and has been in use without modification since 1997. Each NIR submits address assignment and allocation information listing allocations and reservations made for each member, customer assignments made by each member and assignments made directly by the confederation themselves. This is done to substantiate that at least 80 percent of the address space allocation received from APNIC has been used by the NIR. Additional address space can also be requested when an LIR member of an NIR submits a request that is greater than the pool of available address space held by the NIR.

Problems

Volume

Typically NIRs are allocated an address range that exceeds any allocation made to an LIR. The total pool of address space held by an NIR is often very large. When requesting new allocations, the NIR will submit an overview of the last allocation it received. Because the assignment to customers of long prefixes is now common, the size of a single request sent by an NIR is often extremely large, amounting to many pages of information. For example, requests have been received which are around 2MB in size. Both compiling and evaluating this quantity of information in a qualitative way is very time consuming. If the evaluation could be distributed across the duration of an allocation, rather than at a single point in time, the process could be more efficient for both NIRs and APNIC.

Timeliness

When an NIR submits a request with only 20 percent of their address pool remaining, there is often considerable pressure on all concerned for an allocation to be granted quickly, leading to potential problems in the evaluation. If there are queries concerning specific allocations or assignments, the actual time taken to resolve a request can often be very lengthy. This can mean that requests by LIRs to an NIR for an additional address allocation can be held up by the processing of the NIR request as a whole.

Incomplete data

The address request form currently requires that NIRs declare all the address space they hold. However, due to the volume of documentation required, NIRs typically send in details of their last allocations only. This means that up to 20 percent of any previous allocation may go unreported.

Database consistency

In the past there have been a number of problems with the database entries associated with the NIR ranges. Assignments have not been registered, allocations have not been registered, and NIC handles have been used incorrectly without reference to the appropriate people. The magnitude of the problem is considerably greater when an NIR only has contact with APNIC at the time of requesting an additional allocation. More frequent contact would enable any problems to be identified and fixed earlier.

Differing methodologies

The table below gives an overview of the parts of the APNIC procedural framework followed by the respective NIRs.

 ALLOCATION WINDOW ASSIGNMENT WINDOW APNIC-065
TWNIC NO Yes Yes
CNNIC YES Unknown Yes
JPNIC NO Yes No
APJII YES Planned Yes
KRNIC NO No No

  • An 'Allocation Window' defines the amount of address space that an NIR is able to allocate to an LIR without first seeking a 'second opinion' from APNIC. This increases as the NIR demonstrates understanding of the 'Policies for address space management in the AP region'.
  • An 'Assignment Window' defines the amount of address space that an LIR can assign to its end-users without first seeking a second opinion from APNIC or from an NIR. This increases as the LIR demonstrates understanding of the 'Policies for address space management in the AP region'.

While it is necessary that each NIR is able to define their own local procedures for address requests, there is a clear trade off against the need for consistency. In the interests of fairness and consistency to all members, and also of compliance with global RIR policies, APNIC strongly believes that NIRs should follow consistent procedures.

Management overhead

The IR system globally is one of delegated authority. Responsibility for the management of the address space is delegated to the users of the address space. However, increasing the number of layers of delegated authority, increases the management complexity.

While the fine detail of specific NIR procedures and local policy variations is not fully understood by APNIC and while each NIR is different, in the interests of fairness and consistency to all members, it is necessary that APNIC collects detailed documentation from all NIRs in order to ensure that policies are complied with. If, however, there is a common framework, then the management of the delegation becomes much less complex.

Proposal

In seeking to improve the mechanics of the procedures by which NIRs request additional address space from APNIC, an alternative framework to the one above, which is consistent across all NIRs, would simplify the overall approach to management. A number of related suggestions are offered to the NIRs for discussion.

  1. One possible approach is to use an 'allocation window' mechanism. The size of the 'allocation window' would determine the size of an allocation that an NIR could make to its members without a second opinion from APNIC. Two NIRs are using an allocation window system already. If an 'allocation window' is used, APNIC is able to carefully evaluate a subset of the requests received by the NIR from their LIR members for consistency across the region. Unlike current procedures, APNIC would be able to see how infrastructure was being used as well as receiving a declaration of customer assignments.

    An allocation window, like an assignment window, would increase over time, as a member gained more experience. However, this would require that all NIRs use a request form that is similar to the APNIC-065 form. At the moment, three NIRs are already doing this. Overall this would also have the advantage that the NIR would have more frequent contact with APNIC, which would foster a closer working relationship.

  2. It is also proposed that NIRs implement the 'assignment window' procedure with their LIRs. This would ensure that the LIRs assignments are being monitored with a high degree of granularity.
  3. APNIC-075 should be simplified. The current request form could be simplified to a list of allocations and reservations, with the bulk of the evaluation and monitoring work moved from a single point of evaluation to a series of ongoing interactions with APNIC. This would be more efficient for both NIRs and APNIC.
  4. A training document could be written with guidelines for all hostmasters on how to evaluate address space allocations. It would contain examples of specific difficult cases and include step by step checks on what to do in certain scenarios. It is proposed that all NIRs contribute sections of the document.
  5. Based on the above training document, APNIC could prepare specific training courses for NIRs. These could be delivered to NIRs simultaneously as one group. The courses should be presented at least once a year and should be run for at least one day, possibly two. The course should also include plenty of time for workshop sessions running through practical examples and problems faced by NIR hostmasters. APNIC should also make its Local IR training course material available to NIRs to modify for delivery to their members.

The future

APNIC is currently developing software which will automate the allocation of address space to members once an approval for a subsequent allocation has been given. APNIC would like to plan in the future to make this software interface available to NIRs so that they are able to query the interface and obtain the next contiguous block for their members. This would mean that address space would not be held by an NIR but that through an encrypted session they were able to obtain the next block for an individual member without interaction from APNIC hostmasters. The management by APNIC and NIRs of a common pool of IP space will reduce address space fragmentation which is a problem with the current model.



Home | MyAPNIC | Info & FAQ | Services | Training | Meetings | Membership | Policy | Internet community | Search
Last modified | © 1999 - APNIC Pty. Ltd.
Comments to: )">webmaster@apnic.net | Privacy statement | RSS Really Simple Syndication