Keyboard Shortcuts
Thread View
j: Next unread messagek: Previous unread messagej a: Jump to all threadsj l: Jump to MailingList overview
----------------------------------------------------------------------- prop-062: Use of final /8 -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear colleagues
This is the final call for comments on policy proposal prop-062, "Use of final /8".
This proposal was presented at APNIC 26 and was accepted by consensus.
The proposal has been submitted to the Policy SIG mailing list for an eight-week discussion period. At the end of that period, if consensus appears to have been achieved, the Policy SIG Chair will ask the Executive Council to endorse the proposal for implementation.
* Send all comments and questions to: sig-policy@apnic.net * Deadline for comments: 24 October 2008
Proposal details ----------------
- New and existing LIRs in the APNIC region to be able to receive a single allocation from the last /8 if they meet the current allocation criteria:
- The size of allocations to be tied to APNIC's minimum allocation size
- A /16 to be reserved from the final /8 for distribution for future, as yet unknown, technology requirements.
Proposal details including the full text of the proposal, presentations, links to relevant meeting archives and links to mailing list discussions are available at:
Some comments about this proposal:
1) I think it's misnamed. It doesn't deal with the last /8. It deals with a part of it. This could be fixed easily by changing the name. Or if the name is correct, then the content needs to change. The proposal doesn't seem to discuss the use of the last /8 so much as allocate a /22 to existing and new members once the last /8 is assigned to APNIC. There are 16128 usable /22s in a /8 (after the /16 for unknown use is taken out). As I recall from discussions in Christchurch this was much larger than the number of APNIC members.
In essence this proposal has the following problems:
a) it proposes to underallocate the last /8 because there are less than 16k APNIC members. b) it encourages organisations to sign up new APNIC members just to get more address space. These memberships will be spurious and cause more problems than they are worth for the validity of the registration data. c) nothing in the proposal deals with what happens with any additional space once all existing members get their /22s (apart from waiting for new members to join). People have said "There won't be any. People will just sign up new members to get it". True.... See point (b)
I think changes need to be made so that the proposal actually addresses what happens with the entirety of the last /8, not just part of it. Having said that. As Geoff is fond of pointing out, this whole proposal is like arguing over which deck chair on the Titanic has the best view. It's really too late by the time we're down to the last /8.
2) I'd like to see the allocation of ANY of the last /8 to any APNIC member tied pretty strongly to an IPv6 deployment policy. Anyone who isn't making inroads into IPv6 by the time APNIC is down to the last /8 has all but missed the boat, let alone the point. APNIC has a responsibility to guide these members on the right track. Ensuring that they not only have an IPv6 allocation, but a deployment and migration plan would go a long way to ensuring that people are on the right track.
Dean
Randy Bush wrote:
prop-062: Use of final /8
Dear colleagues
This is the final call for comments on policy proposal prop-062, "Use of final /8".
This proposal was presented at APNIC 26 and was accepted by consensus.
The proposal has been submitted to the Policy SIG mailing list for an eight-week discussion period. At the end of that period, if consensus appears to have been achieved, the Policy SIG Chair will ask the Executive Council to endorse the proposal for implementation.
- Send all comments and questions to: sig-policy@apnic.net
- Deadline for comments: 24 October 2008
Proposal details
- New and existing LIRs in the APNIC region to be able to receive a single allocation from the last /8 if they meet the current allocation criteria: - The size of allocations to be tied to APNIC's minimum allocation size - A /16 to be reserved from the final /8 for distribution for future, as yet unknown, technology requirements.Proposal details including the full text of the proposal, presentations, links to relevant meeting archives and links to mailing list discussions are available at:
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-062-v002.html
sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
Hi Dean,
Dean Pemberton said the following on 23/9/08 13:44:
- I think it's misnamed. It doesn't deal with the last /8. It deals
with a part of it. This could be fixed easily by changing the name. Or if the name is correct, then the content needs to change.
As you will recall from the APNIC Policy SIG meeting, the policy that was approved deals with the last /8 worth of address space that APNIC has. It no longer deals with the /8 that will be assigned by a successful proposal-055. http://www.apnic.net/policy/discussions/prop-062-v002.txt is the updated text based on the outcome of the Christchurch meeting.
The proposal doesn't seem to discuss the use of the last /8 so much as allocate a /22 to existing and new members once the last /8 is assigned to APNIC.
It doesn't allocate a /22. It allocates APNIC's minimum allocation at time of allocation request. Today this is a /22 - it might be something else in the future.
There are 16128 usable /22s in a /8 (after the /16 for unknown use is taken out). As I recall from discussions in Christchurch this was much larger than the number of APNIC members.
Much larger than today's combined APNIC and NIR membership. Are we to assume that growth in APNIC and NIR membership is to remain static? This was discussed in Christchurch and I think it was reasonably clear that we really don't know what will happen.
In essence this proposal has the following problems:
a) it proposes to underallocate the last /8 because there are lessthan 16k APNIC members.
Today. What will APNIC's and the NIR's membership be 2 or 3 years from now? (I don't know, and wouldn't dare to guess.)
b) it encourages organisations to sign up new APNIC members just toget more address space. These memberships will be spurious and cause more problems than they are worth for the validity of the registration data.
How do we know they will be spurious? Some organisations up to now are quite happy to work with address space from their upstream. But if they realise that they can justify utilisation of a /22 then they can get it directly from APNIC instead. I see nothing wrong with this.
c) nothing in the proposal deals with what happens with anyadditional space once all existing members get their /22s (apart from waiting for new members to join). People have said "There won't be any. People will just sign up new members to get it". True.... See point (b)
Do we care? IPv4 will/should be virtually all gone by then. People should be using IPv6, right?
I think changes need to be made so that the proposal actually addresses what happens with the entirety of the last /8, not just part of it.
I thought it addresses the entirety of the last /8. If there is something missing, please describe what is missing. I know you have said that APNIC doesn't have 16000 or so members *today*, but we are not talking about today, we are talking about when there is no more IPv4 address space available from IANA. What should we be doing to augment the proposal?
Having said that. As Geoff is fond of pointing out, this whole proposal is like arguing over which deck chair on the Titanic has the best view. It's really too late by the time we're down to the last /8.
100% agreement from me.
- I'd like to see the allocation of ANY of the last /8 to any APNIC
member tied pretty strongly to an IPv6 deployment policy.
This question was asked in Christchurch - the chairs should correct me if I'm wrong, but when the question was asked of the audience, I don't recall many hands going up to indicate support for this idea.
Anyone who isn't making inroads into IPv6 by the time APNIC is down to the last /8 has all but missed the boat, let alone the point.
Agreed.
APNIC has a responsibility to guide these members on the right track. Ensuring that they not only have an IPv6 allocation, but a deployment and migration plan would go a long way to ensuring that people are on the right track.
Can APNIC tell its members what to do? I suspect not... But I agree with the sentiment...
philip --
We get down to the last /8 and the following happens . a /<minimum allocation> is given, or available to all existing LIRs . a /<minimum allocation> is available to all new LIRs . a /16 is reserved for future use. . a the rest, if there is a rest, is used or allocated to....... yeah this is the bit I don't see explicitly described.
because it does not exist.
Does it sit there waiting for new LIRs to get their /<minimum allocation> or is it able to be allocated under current guidelines?
it is allocated to new lirs or existing lirs, one per, as they apply.
When APNIC is down to the last /8: /16 gets reserved All existing LIRs get one more /<minimum allocation> and thats it. Don't come back for any more ever, no matter what the reason, even if we have some more not being used.
a /min is available to each existing lir. they need to apply to get it.
Any new LIRs get one /<minimum allocation> and thats it. Thats all youget. You can't have anymore, don't ask. Even if there is some of the last /8 still unallocated.
yes, when they apply.
Any other space within the last /8 is then kept aside for future new LIRs.It will never be available to existing LIRs. If you want some of it, get a new LIR.
yep
randy
If a line such as "Once an existing LIR has applied and been allocated their /min from within the last /8, they are not eligible for any further IPv4 allocations from APNIC, regardless of how much unallocated IPv4 space may remain from the last /8" was included in the proposal, I think it would make it clearer.
could be. i think simplicity was a goal, and not to list all possibly exclusions as they are quite large. it does say
It is proposed that each existing LIR may request and receive only a single allocation from the remaining /8 worth of address space:
- Each existing LIR may receive APNIC's current minimum allocation size in force at time of allocation. If APNIC's current minimum allocation were to reduce in size in future, the allocation made under this policy should also be reduced to match.
- Each existing LIR may receive the specified allocation size regardless of size or intended membership tier
- Each existing LIR may apply for and receive this allocation once they meet the criteria to receive IPv4 address space according to APNIC's current allocation policy in force at the time (currently documented in [APNIC-86]).
By the time we get to the last /8 it's all too late anyway.
i suspect it's pretty late now.
randy
Hi Philip,
At 02:40 PM 23/09/2008, Philip Smith wrote:
It doesn't allocate a /22. It allocates APNIC's minimum allocation at time of allocation request. Today this is a /22 - it might be something else in the future.
I don't think anyone would believe that we're going to *increase* the minimum allocation of IPv4 addresses from a /22. And if we *decrease* it further, then Dean's subsequent points about usage are emphasised, not diluted.
b) it encourages organisations to sign up new APNIC members just toget more address space. These memberships will be spurious and cause more problems than they are worth for the validity of the
registration data.
How do we know they will be spurious? Some organisations up to now are quite happy to work with address space from their upstream. But if they realise that they can justify utilisation of a /22 then they can get it directly from APNIC instead. I see nothing wrong with this.
I do not think it would be good for the regional Internet industry to encourage this scenario:
I'm assuming that the current situation is that APNIC members are predominantly ISPs - institutions with an intrinsic function of enabling Internet access, and with a level of understanding about IP addressing.
I suspect that there would be a significant impact on APNIC's operational efficiency (and potentially costs) if APNIC were flooded with membership requests from bodies that fundamentally do not understand the Internet or IP addressing, nor have a business need to do so - all they would know is that they need IP addresses, and can't get them from anywhere else.
Regards,
David
I suspect that there would be a significant impact on APNIC's operational efficiency (and potentially costs) if APNIC were flooded with membership requests from bodies that fundamentally do not understand the Internet or IP addressing, nor have a business need to do so - all they would know is that they need IP addresses, and can't get them from anywhere else.
it's the same the world over. real customers are such a pain. sigh.
randy
hi dean:
- I think it's misnamed. It doesn't deal with the last /8. It
deals with a part of it.
could you describe which part(s) of the /8 it does not cover?
my read of the document is that a /16 is held in reserve and the rest goes to minimum allocations to existing and new entrants. if this is not the case, then, indeed, we need to fix the wording.
The proposal doesn't seem to discuss the use of the last /8 so much as allocate a /22 to existing and new members once the last /8 is assigned to APNIC.
well, kinda. o it does not allocate them, but reserves them to be allocated o it is not /22s, but rather the current minimum allocation when the actual allocations are made o there is also a /16 held in reserve for unexpected circumstances
In essence this proposal has the following problems: a) it proposes to underallocate the last /8 because there are less than 16k APNIC members.
the thought, as i hope it says in the document, was to allow for *new* entrants in the game. some of us are contemplating children. some of us even have grandchildren. we're trying to leave a little of what was so plentiful for us to them.
b) it encourages organisations to sign up new APNIC members justto get more address space. These memberships will be spurious and cause more problems than they are worth for the validity of the registration data.
indeed, and the possibility of bogus applications is a problem we have today. you are correct in that this proposal does not attempt to solve it. do you have specific suggestions to do so other than not allocating resources at all?
c) nothing in the proposal deals with what happens with anyadditional space once all existing members get their /22s (apart from waiting for new members to join).
this is not anticipated to be a major issue once ipv4 space runs out. but, if some more shows up, you're right, this policy does not cover it. so i presume that would be allocated under then then existing policies.
as this is not the ietf, we're not trying to boil the whole ocean, just deal with some specific problems, ensuring small bits of ipv4 space to existing and new entrants for a while (think a world where multi-homed site nats needing to talk to the v4 internet are common). we're just trying to make the last bar of chocolate last a while.
I think changes need to be made so that the proposal actually addresses what happens with the entirety of the last /8, not just part of it.
again, which part of the last /8 does it not cover. please be very specific.
- I'd like to see the allocation of ANY of the last /8 to any APNIC
member tied pretty strongly to an IPv6 deployment policy.
ipv6 deployment will happen on its own merit. the child will not eat more vegetables if you starve it for meat.
Anyone who isn't making inroads into IPv6 by the time APNIC is down to the last /8 has all but missed the boat, let alone the point.
and this is a problem we can actually solve? is this like the dick cheney government invading iraq to bring them democracy even if we need to kill them all?
randy
Activity Summary
- 5485 days inactive
- 5485 days old
- sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
- 4 participants
- 9 comments