j: Next unread message
k: Previous unread message
j a: Jump to all threads
j l: Jump to MailingList overview
Re: [sig-policy] sig-policy Digest, Vol 177, Issue 4
Hi Satoru, I hope you are fine. It's really great to hear from you that, you have already arranged a local discussion on prop-127. As mentioned in proposal, decreasing the maximum allocation size from /22 to /23 can prolong the last 103/8 pool so more small startups can still be connected with multi-homing.
From my point of view, as IPv4 is not a durable solution for anyone right now, so "delegating less IPv4 addresses to more organizations" is better than "delegating much IPv4 addresses to less organizations"
If the maximum delegation size can be reduced to /23 than more organizations can get IPv4 addresses in this crisis period of IPv4 exhaustion which can be vital for their businesses to start and they have the rights to get that I think.
So it seems a very timely proposal to prolong the final 103/8 pool and we really need this.
My comments are below on some of your raised points. * I am worried that the change a allocation size and this discussion will be repeated each time the 103/8 address pool decreases.* It should be /24 in this time if it will be changed it in the future. * I'd like to know the reason why "/23", not "/24" or other prefix size.
----- I think, decreasing the allocation size to /23 is more suitable for multi-homing along with traffic load sharing.If it is /24 then multi-homing is possible but traffic load sharing will not work.And other options such as /25 or /26 etc are not possible as per current best practices you know. * /23 seems too small for a newcomer.
---- Yep, /23 seems too small, but there is no better options available i think. Let's have some more discussion from other community members on prop-127. And lastly thanks again for your concern.
Thanks & Regards, Md. Abdullah Al NaserDhaka, Bangladesh
On Friday, February 22, 2019, 9:30:15 AM GMT+6, email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
Send sig-policy mailing list submissions to email@example.com
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to firstname.lastname@example.org
You can reach the person managing the list at email@example.com
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of sig-policy digest..."
1. Re: Prop-127 announcement : Change maximum delegation size of 103/8 IPv4 address, pool to a /23 (Satoru Tsurumaki) 2. Re: prop-128-v001: Multihoming not required for ASN (Satoru Tsurumaki)
Message: 1 Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2019 12:29:08 +0900 From: Satoru Tsurumaki firstname.lastname@example.org To: Policy SIG email@example.com Subject: Re: [sig-policy] Prop-127 announcement : Change maximum delegation size of 103/8 IPv4 address, pool to a /23 Message-ID: CAHXx+kT8=c1Bczocna-MMptrKST--poHLpv8LnPBQ5abFGqZ2A@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
I am Satoru Tsurumaki from Japan Open Policy Forum Steering Team.
I would like to share a feedback in our community for prop-127, based on a meeting we organized on 12th Feb to discuss these proposals.
Almost half of participants were oppose the proposal and almost other half ware neutral. Many opposing comments were expressed with the reasons below:
* I am worried that the change a allocation size and this discussion will be repeated each time the 103/8 address pool decreases.
* It should be /24 in this time if it will be changed it in the future.
* I'd like to know the reason why "/23", not "/24" or other prefix size.
* /23 seems too small for a newcomer.
* A Newcomer can choose a transfer as a alternative if the proposal not reach consensus.
Satoru Tsurumaki JPOPF-ST
2019?1?18?(?) 15:17 Bertrand Cherrier firstname.lastname@example.org:
Dear SIG members,
The proposal "prop-127-v001: Change maximum delegation size of 103/8 IPv4 address pool to a /23" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.
It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting at APNIC 47 in Daejeon, South Korea on Wednesday, 27 February 2019.
We invite you to review and comment on the proposal on the mailing list before the meeting.
The comment period on the mailing list before an APNIC meeting is an important part of the policy development process. We encourage you to express your views on the proposal:
- Do you support or oppose this proposal? - Does this proposal solve a problem you are experiencing? If so, tell the community about your situation. - Do you see any disadvantages in this proposal? - Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear? - What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more effective?
Information about this proposal is available at:
Sumon, Bertrand, Ching-Heng APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
prop-127-v001: Change maximum delegation size of 103/8 IPv4 address pool to a /23
Proposers: Ching-Heng Ku, Aftab Siddiqui, Yen-Chieh Wang email@example.com
- Problem Statement
This is a proposal to change the maximum size of IPv4 address delegations from the APNIC 103/8 IPv4 address pool  to a /23. 2. Objective of policy change
The current final /8 allocation policy requires that the current minimum delegation size for IPv4 is a /24 and each APNIC account holder is only eligible to receive IPv4 address delegations totalling a maximum /22 from the APNIC 103/8 IPv4 address pool.
According to the APNIC IPv4 Address Report, https://ipv4.potaroo.net/, remaining addresses in the APNIC 103/8 pool are 42.8%, 33.3%, 23.4% of /8 in the end of 2016, 2017, and 2018, respectively. The remaining number of APNIC 103/8 IPv4 address pool for APNIC account holder is less and less. It is predicted that the 103/8 pool will be exhausted in 2020.
Reducing the maximum IPv4 delegation size from APNIC 103/8 IPv4 address pool can prolong the exhaustion time of the 103/8. Newcomers of APNIC account holders will have the benefit in this period of time. New companies can obtain some IPv4 address space in the APNIC service region without the need to trade for address space and can make the preparation for the subsequent IPv6 migration.
It is recommended that the number of assigned IPv4 addresses in Final /8 be reduced from a maximum of /22 to /23. It will be estimated to extend the exhaustion time for at least three years or more. 3. Situation in other regions
There is no similar policy in place in other RIR regions. 4. Proposed policy solution
It is proposed to modify the 6.1 Minimum and maximum IPv4 delegations of the APNIC Internet Number Resource Policies.
This proposal is to change the maximum size of IPv4 address delegations from the APNIC 103/8 IPv4 address pool to a /23. /23 is important because new ISPs can use /24 for internal infrastructure and /24 customer assignments and NAT for IPv6 transition.
Current Policy text
Each APNIC account holder is only eligible to receive IPv4 address delegations totalling a maximum /22 from the APNIC 103/8 IPv4 address pool.
New Policy text
Each APNIC account holder without APNIC 103/8 IPv4 address delegations from the APNIC 103/8 IPv4 address pool is only eligible to receive a maximum /23 from the APNIC 103/8 IPv4 address pool. 5. Advantages / Disadvantages
- This proposal allows a greater range of networks to access the
resources in the final /8.
- This proposal extends the maximum possible total number of networks that can benefit from the final /8 pool from around 16,000 to around 18,000 networks, providing small amounts of IPv4 to be available for networks, developing economy, etc., making the transition to IPv6 for many years to come.
- No disadvantages are foreseen.
- Impact on resource holders
It reduces the maximum size of the delegated address block available to APNIC members during the final /8 phase. This will affect NIR members in the same way as APNIC members. 7. References
 Section 6.1. "Minimum and maximum IPv4 delegations" of "Policies for IPv4 address space management in the Asia Pacific region" https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/resources#Part-2-IPv4-Policy * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list firstname.lastname@example.org https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy