APNIC Home
APNIC home / Meetings / APNIC 24 / Program / SIGs / NIR / Minutes . .

24th APNIC Open Policy Meeting - NIR SIG minutes

Wednesday 5 September 2007, Intercontinental The Grand Hotel, New Delhi, India

Meeting commenced:
4:51 pm
Chair:
Izumi Okutani

The Chair introduced the SIG and presented the agenda, asking if the participants would prefer to continue fee discussions from previous APNIC fees WG session or proceed with the planned NIR SIG agenda. The participants preferred to continue with the planned agenda.

  1. NIR fee WG

    Presenter:
    Izumi Okutani, JPNIC

    The Chair noted that the NIR fee WG mailing list had been created for NIR and APNIC staff and was not open to the public. She explained that some time after the NIR fee WG was created, an APNIC fees WG mailing list had been created that was open for anybody in the community to join.

    The Chair suggested that as the APNIC fees WG was looking at issues across the APNIC fee structure, the NIR fee WG could be closed. The Chair asked if there were any objections or comments. There were not.

    The Chair requested the APNIC Secretariat to close the NIR fee WG mailing list.

    The Chair stated that fee discussion were still active on the open APNIC fees WG mailing list and encouraged NIR SIG members to participate.

    Questions and discussion

    None.

    Action items

    • nir-24-001: APNIC Secretariat to close the NIR fees WG mailing list.

  2. Policy update of other RIRs

    Presenter:
    Guangliang Pan, APNIC
    Presentation

    The presenter reported on recent policy developments in the five RIR regions.

    The presenter noted several IPv4 policy developments of interest to the NIR community:

    • The presenter noted that in the past APNIC had been the only RIR to allocate according to an LIR's requirements for one year. RIPE and AfriNIC had allocated for a two-year requirement while LACNIC and ARIN allocated for a three-month requirement. The presenter reported that AfriNIC, LACNIC and RIPE had all now adopted a one-year allocation period. He noted that ARIN had not yet adopted the one-year allocation requirement.
    • The presenter explained that the process of second opinions and assignment windows is only used by RIPE NCC and APNIC. He reported that RIPE had adopted a new policy that automatically increased an LIR's assignment window to /21 six months after the LIR had received resources.
    • The presenter reported that the IPv4 countdown policy proposal developed by the JPNIC community had been discussed in other RIR regions. He reported that version one of the proposal had been abandoned in the ARIN and LACNIC regions.
    • The presenter stated that the Global Policy for the Allocation of the Remaining IPv4 Address Space would be discussed at APNIC 24 in the Policy SIG.

    The presenter noted several IPv4 policy developments of interest to the NIR community:

    • It was reported that the HD ratio used to measure IPv6 utilisation had been changed from 0.8 to 0.94 in all regions except RIPE.
    • It was reported that there are changes to the initial allocation criteria for IPv6. AfriNIC asks requestors to show a reasonable plan, LACNIC asks for a documented detailed plan and RIPE has removed the plan for 200 /48s. The speaker noted the allocation criteria would be discussed in the Policy SIG at APNIC 24.

    The presenter noted that there was only one policy proposal for AS numbers, 'IANA policy for allocation of ASN blocks to Regional Internet Registries', which documented as policy existing practice between IANA and the RIRs.

    The presenter also summarised recent policy implementations at APNIC: prop-032, prop-038, prop-033 and prop-031.

    Questions and discussion

    • There was a question about the effect of the HD ratio change on per-address fees. It was explained that the APNIC EC had decided to amend the fee structure to change the per-address fee from "current HD ratio" to "HD ratio of 0.8" to ensure that the total payments for IPv6 per-address allocations do not change.
    • The presenter noted that APNIC was the only RIR performing the Second Opinion process. He asked participants if they had any thoughts on whether this process should continue. There were no comments from participants on this.
    • There was a question about the eGLOP policy proposal. It was asked why other regions had abandoned the proposal. It was explained that there was no formal mandate from IETF to the RIRs to distribute this space. It was asked how ISPs could obtain eGLOP space if it was not available from RIRs. It was noted that eGLOP address space was available directly from IANA.
    • The Chair encouraged NIRs that had any members who found the IPv6 initial allocation criteria of a plan for 200 assignments to be a barrier to IPv6 entry to raise the issue during the proposal discussions at the Policy SIG the following day.

  3. JPNIC update

    Presenter:
    Toshiyuki Hosaka, JPNIC
    Presentation

    This presentation reported on IPv4 consumption activities at JPNIC since APNIC 23.

    The presenter noted that JPNIC had been performing a lot of IPv4 consumption outreach activities.

    JPNIC issued two press releases in June and August to inform the community of IPv4 consumption. JPNIC has developed a portal site on IPv4 exhaustion, which contains projections on the end-date of the free IPv4 address pool, policy proposals related to IPv4 consumption, FAQs, etc.

    The speaker reported that JPNIC has created a fortnightly report in Japanese sent by mail to the community.

    He stated that as a result of these outreach activities, JPNIC has been contacted by the media and conducted many press interviews with national newspapers and IT-related magazines.

    The speaker reported that JPNIC had established two WGs to look at IPv4 exhaustion-related issues. He stated that a final report based on the WGs' activities was to be published in Japanese by end of 2007.

    The presenter explained that WG 1 was established to consider appropriate address policy to handle IPv4 exhaustion and IPv4 address recovery, and the development of a market for IPv4 addresses.

    WG 2 was established to focus on technical issues such as the business impact of IPv4 exhaustion, IPv6 transition scenarios, and other technical solutions to IPv4 exhaustion such as NAT.

    The WGs report to a special committee consisting of members of the JPNIC Board of Trustees. The special committee will make a recommendation to larger Board of Trustees, who will then publish the report by the end of 2007.

    Questions and discussion

    • The speaker noted that the Government of Japan had now convened its own working group to look at the transition from IPv4 to IPv6. The presenter displayed a press release: http://www.soumu.go.jp/joho_tsusin/eng/Releases/Telecommunications/news070807_2.html. The presenter stated that one of the JPNIC directors had joined the government working group.
    • The Chair asked if any other NIRs had similar working groups for the transition from IPv4 to IPv6.
    • Billy Cheon from KRNIC of NIDA reported that Korea had the IPv6 Forum Korea to promote IPv6 deployment. It was noted that the forum collaborates with other government agencies and that in 2008 NIDA would take over responsibility for IPv6 deployment activities. Billy Cheon invited collaboration from other countries on IPv6 deployment activities. The Chair suggested that perhaps the Japanese government would be interested in collaboration.
    • Ching-Heng Ku from TWNIC reported that in Taiwan there has been an IPv6 Development and Deployment Program for the last few years. He reported that in June or July this year the Taiwanese government had released a document requiring government departments to prepare for IPv6 deployment.
    • The Chair noted that there seemed to have been a shift in IPv6 activities from research into IPv6 to smooth deployment.

  4. IPv6 tunnel broker deployment in Taiwan

    Presenter:
    Sheng-Wei Kuo, TWNIC
    Presentation

    This presentation examined why IPv6 tunnel broker services are necessary to allow fast and easy access to IPv6 services. The presenter reported that TWNIC is working with seven major ISPs to deploy the free tunnel broker services in Taiwan.

    The presenter described the components of IPv6 tunnel broker services: Gateway, GUI client, DNS and Radius. He noted that one gateway could support 10,000 users simultaneously. He explained that DNS was necessary because IPv6 addresses were too long to remember.

    He noted that the disadvantage of a tunnel broker service is that it does not support QoS.

    The speaker reported that TWNIC began deploying with ISPs in June 2007. In August, TWNIC initiated an IPv6 tunnel broker WG. In December, TWNIC plan to launch the service for consumers. 30,000 people are expected to use the tunnel broker service daily. The tunnel broker service will provide IPv6 applications such as VoiPv6, an IPv6 blog, IPv6 video, and IPv6 P2P services.

    Questions and discussion

    • Randy Bush noted that IPv6 tunnel broker use is for IPv6 trapped behind an IPv4-only ISPs. He asked if this situation is common in Taiwan, suggesting it would be good if these ISPs became dual stack. He asked if TWNIC had examined the implementation curve of dual stack deployment in Taiwan.
    • Ming-Cheng Liang explained that one of the major Taiwanese ISPs, HiNet, was dual stack. He suggested that he hoped that HiNet's move to dual stack would encourage other ISPs to move to dual stack. He explained that TWNIC was using the tunnel broker service to help make it easier for ISPs to move to IPv6.
    • Tomohiro Fujisaki stated that he was very interested in the result of Taiwan's tunnel broker activity and asked TWNIC to report on the service at the next IPv6 technical SIG.
    • Billy Cheon asked what data TWNIC was basing the 30,000 customer figure on. Ching-Heng Ku replied that the number was the result of the capability of the equipment and the number of participating ISP customers.
    • Billy Cheon asked if TWNIC had a definition of an IPv6 user. He asked if it was defined as someone who happened to use IPv6 when accessing a website.
    • Ching-Heng Ku replied that the broker project was to allow people to connect to IPv6-based websites that cannot be accessed via IPv4. The Chair noted that there seemed to be no real answer to what an IPv6 user actually was defined as. She suggested that participants see how the definition developed over time.

  5. APNIC and CNNIC service

    Presenter:
    Wei Zhao, CNNIC
    Presentation

    The presenter explained that the aim of presentation was to help the APNIC members learn about what CNNIC is doing and what CNNIC is contributing to its local community.

    The presenter reported that in June 2007, CNNIC turned 10. She noted that the CNNIC's first allocation, made in 1997, consisted of 4,096 IPv4 addresses.

    In 2006, CNNIC made 95 IPv4 allocations and six IPv6 allocations. Also in 2006, CNNIC created 185 reverse DNS delegations and made contact with 54 historical address holders. Two open meetings were held by CNNIC in 2006 with 140 attendees.

    The presenter compared APNIC and CNNIC services, noting that APNIC and CNNIC provide comparable resource and training services.

    CNNIC membership has been increasing steadily since its creation. In 2006, CNNIC had nearly to 200 members.

    The presenter noted that in 2001, CNNIC's membership numbers increased at a proportional rate of more than triple the rate of APNIC's that year.

    The presenter stated that since 2000, the number of CNNIC allocations had increased at a proportional rate higher than the proportional rate of increased allocations at APNIC.

    The presenter reported that CNNIC has been taking on a large workload due to the increasing membership numbers.

    The presenter noted that CNNIC offered localised language services for allocation requests and training. She stated that since CNNIC was closer to its customers than APNIC was to its members, it allowed CNNIC to cut costs in communicating with its members.

    Questions and discussion

    • Randy Bush stated that the Internet was about cooperation. He stated that APNIC also did other services not mentioned in the presentation such as technical work, global work, and whois. He stated that he was sure that the NIRs are doing a good job, but suggested that the speaker should not be so competitive in a presentation.
    • The speaker responded that the presentation was not meant to be competitive. Her aim was to tell the rest of the members of APNIC that NIRs do a really good job and contribute a lot.
    • The Chair stated that she thought it was a good idea to share information about what NIRs do with the larger APNIC community and that a comparison of activities was interesting. However, she suggested it might be better to stick a little more to comparisons based more on facts.
    • Randy Bush stated that he would be interested to learn more about the structure of CNNIC, the software CNNIC runs, etc., in presentations given by NIRs.

  6. NIR SIG Chair election

    The Chair stepped down for the Chair election and asked for a volunteer to run the election. Randy Bush volunteered. He stated that there was only one nominee for the position of SIG Chair: Izumi Okutani. He asked if there were any objections to Izumi Okutani being re-elected as Chair. There were none. He congratulated Izumi on being re-elected.

  7. My experience with APNIC

    Presenter:
    JM Kim, KRNIC of NIDA
    Presenter

    This presentation reported on JM Kim's training at APNIC in August 2007. The presenter gave a detailed breakdown of the activities he was involved with in his time at APNIC.

    He reported that his impressions of APNIC were that the resource analysts have a well-distributed work load and that there was good cooperation between different departments. The speaker stated that APNIC had a well-organised and documented HM manual and internal web site. He noted that many nationalities worked together at APNIC.

    The presenter made some recommendations for other NIR staff going to APNIC for training. He suggested avoiding busy seasons at APNIC, such as just before an APNIC meeting, and giving APNIC staff as much information as possible about level of knowledge of the NIR staff member going to APNIC.

Meeting closed:
6:20 pm
Minuted by:
Sam Dickinson

Open action items

  • nir-24-001: APNIC Secretariat to close the NIR fees WG mailing list.