Orbit

Dear Skeeve,

When I referred to respecting views, it was precisely over this thought that only skilled and experienced engineers can have opinions. :-)

Frankly, this proposal, while not limited to any specific country has a requirement for one large project in India.In my opinion, the same can be applied for without going through this policy process. Please comment.

Regards and best wishes,

Naresh Ajwani Sent from my iPad

On Aug 28, 2011, at 7:48, Skeeve Stevens Skeeve@eintellego.net wrote:

Naresh,

I realise that you think that people are not respecting views here in some casesŠ but the problem I see is that it is not a case of respect in this case.

It is a simple matter of technical implementation and practicality and you are hearing the opinions of many many highly skilled and experienced engineers who have worked for large carriers and build world wide networks.

India is no different to any other nation with regards to how its networks are built and runŠ you have to understand that we are all the same, and that the collective experience of the people who go to the APNIC conference is the most valuable opinion you will EVER get.

ŠSkeeve

-- Skeeve Stevens, CEO - eintellego Pty Ltd - The Networking Specialists skeeve@eintellego.net ; www.eintellego.net Phone: 1300 753 383 ; Fax: (+612) 8572 9954 Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve facebook.com/eintellego or eintellego@facebook.com twitter.com/networkceoau ; www.linkedin.com/in/skeeve PO Box 7726, Baulkham Hills, NSW 1755 Australia

-- eintellego - The Experts that the Experts call

• Juniper - HP Networking - Cisco - Brocade

-----Original Message----- From: ajwaninaresh@gmail.com Reply-To: ajwaninaresh@gmail.com Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2011 19:22:30 +0000 To: Randy Bush randy@psg.com, sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net, sig-policy@lists.apnic.net Subject: Re: [sig-policy] FW: prop-100 National IP Address Plan - Allocationof country-wide IP address blocks

...

Also, one hour tutorial shud take place on respecting views.

Regards,

Naresh Ajwani ------Original Message------ From: Randy Bush Sender: sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net To: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net Sent: Aug 27, 2011 11:54 PM Subject: Re: [sig-policy] FW: prop-100 National IP Address Plan - Allocationof country-wide IP address blocks

apnic meeting organizers and policy sig chairs,

at this late date, is it possible to add a one hour tutorial on inter-domain routing basics to the front of the policy sig meeting? it appears as if we are going to need it to have the discussion of prop-100 be at all reality based.

if pfs won't give it, i will.

randy

•          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

Sent from my BlackBerry® smartphone from Tata Indicom

•          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

Dear Skeeve, When I referred to respecting views, it was precisely over this thought that only skilled and experienced engineers can have opinions. :-)

when i suggested we needed a base in routing on which to discuss the routing-related justifications presented for prop-100, i in no way meant to express the jingoism into which skeeve embarrassingly descended.

my proposal was merely meant to be sure we were all standing on the same technical base when discussing technical issues. and probably we can all use review of the relevant basics.

fwiw, my opinion on the proposal in general is that it is a mistake to try and base it on technical issues. aside from forcing you to deal with ill-mannered engineers such as i, it drags you below layer nine into areas where the arguments being made are very difficult to support technically.

if pop-100 is all at layers nine and ten (politics and religion), you have gone above my pay grade and even i have to admit my opinions are irrelevant. i think if folk would stay above layer eight, then there probably are very reasonable approaches to your very real social and political issues.

for example, ipv6 space is thought to be infinite (i do not necessarily agree. we used to think 32 bits was effectively infinite). think about just reseserving a /16 or whatever for a country and doing sparse allocation from the block in the normal way.

randy

On 29/08/11 12:50 PM, Randy Bush wrote:

for example, ipv6 space is thought to be infinite (i do not necessarily agree. we used to think 32 bits was effectively infinite). think about just reseserving a /16 or whatever for a country and doing sparse allocation from the block in the normal way

That's a good suggestion Randy. I'd likely support something along those lines. I believe that it's a good compromise between how the current policies work and what I believe the proposers of prop-100 are seeking.

Regards, Dean

My problem with prop-100 is that it introduces a new entity, namely, nation/country, into the IP allocation hierarchy.

Currently, RIR's allocate IP addresses based on need of use to organizations. Organizations have needs of IP addresses for their networks. The networks directly owned and operated by organizations. And the justification is on the actual network needs. So there is a fundamental difference between prop-100 and prop-99. Prop-99 falls within the current framework, while prop-100 does not.

While we are discussing prop-100, I would think it is prudent to also seek comments and feedbacks from other RIR's or maybe even IANA. There are bad consequences if APNIC policy is mis-aligned with other 4 RIR's.

Yi Chu Sprint

...

think about just reseserving a /16 or whatever for a country and doing sparse allocation from the block in the normal way

btw, not originated by me. randy

________________________________

This e-mail may contain Sprint Nextel proprietary information intended for the sole use of the recipient(s). Any use by others is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies of the message.

On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 10:14 AM, Alastair Johnson aj@sneep.net wrote:

Hello Naresh,

Could we please have more information on this project? Hopefully that will allow all to understand the requirement for prop-100 better.

I've had extensive discussions in Busan this week with the author of prop-100 and other APNIC members from India about the large push by the Indian government who have mandated that all ISPs with more that 10000 customers must have an IPv6 service offering in place by the end of this year.

I'd call that a reasonably large project and if I was involved in this I'd want to make sure my addressing policy was in place in advance.

...

Hello Naresh,

Could we please have more information on this project? Hopefully that

will allow all to understand the requirement for prop-100 better.

...

I've had extensive discussions in Busan this week with the author of prop-100 and other APNIC members from India about the large push by the Indian government who have mandated that all ISPs with more that 10000 customers must have an IPv6 service offering in place by the end of this year.

I'd call that a reasonably large project and if I was involved in this I'd want to make sure my addressing policy was in place in advance.

So, those service providers who already have IPv6 address space are going to renumber? and return the previous block? Most of the big providers are providing services over v6, so what would be the scenario than?

Regards,

Aftab A. Siddiqui.

Hi Matthew and all,

The APNIC Secretariat has not turned down any IPv6 request from India (or from any other economies for that matter). I believe the policy is about forward planning, more than anything else.

Cheers, ________________________________________________________________________ Sanjaya email: sanjaya@apnic.net Services Director, APNIC sip: sanjaya@voip.apnic.net http://www.apnic.net phone: +61 7 3858 3100 ________________________________________________________________________ * Sent by email to save paper. Print only if necessary.

On 29/08/2011 1:49 PM, Matthew Moyle-Croft wrote:

On 29/08/2011, at 12:26 PM, Andy Linton wrote:

...

On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 10:14 AM, Alastair Johnsonaj@sneep.net wrote:

...

Hello Naresh,

Could we please have more information on this project? Hopefully that will allow all to understand the requirement for prop-100 better.

I've had extensive discussions in Busan this week with the author of prop-100 and other APNIC members from India about the large push by the Indian government who have mandated that all ISPs with more that 10000 customers must have an IPv6 service offering in place by the end of this year.

I'd call that a reasonably large project and if I was involved in this I'd want to make sure my addressing policy was in place in advance

I'm still unclear as to why the space can't be obtained? Has APNIC not given space out to these ISPs? Have any of them approached APNIC and been turned down?

MMC

•          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

Thanks Andy,

We are eagerly waiting for the revision which hopefully will help in positioning the proposal better.

Bye,

Er. Navpreet Singh (FIETE)

Principal Computer Engineer Computer Centre IIT Kanpur- 208016.

Ph: 0512-259-7371 Email: navi@iitk.ac.in Web: http://home.iitk.ac.in/~navi Res: #672, IIT Kanpur

"Progress isn't made by early risers. It's made by lazy men trying to find easier ways to do something."

I'm currently working with the author on some revisions to the proposal which I'd hope to see posted shortly to the list.

It may be easier and more productive for all if we wait for that version.

andy

•          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

I said yesterday that a revised version of the proposal was being worked on. Can we keep our discussions to this version please?

Thanks andy _______________________________________________________________________

prop-100-v001: National IP Address Plan - Allocation of country-wide IP address blocks _______________________________________________________________________

Author: Rakesh Mohan Agarwal ddgnt-dot@nic.in

Version: 2

Date: 30 August 2011

1. Introduction ---------------

A proposal was submitted to APNIC community on 29th July 2011 for the reservation of a contiguous IPv6 address block for different organizations / stakeholders in an economy. In that proposal I have tried to put forward some issues regarding the current practice of APNIC in the allocation of IPv6 addresses.

Further clarifications were given by me on 17/8, 22/8 and 28/8 against various comments and observations received during the period after that also. In the light of the above proposal and clarifications issued by me, I am submitting a revised version of Prop-100 for better understanding of the community members giving some background of why this proposal was submitted by India.

The Government of India released a national IPv6 policy in July 2010 in which it took the following important decisions –

1. All major service providers will target to handle IPv6 traffic and offer IPv6 services by December 2011

2. All central and state government ministries and departments, including its PSUs, shall start using IPv6 services by March-2012

3. Formation of India IPv6 Task Force

For the implementation of the above policy decisions many discussions were held with service providers and organizations in which they were of the opinion that there should be proper address planning for different organizations within the economy. So taking cue from this, Government of India (Department of Telecommunications) set up a committee for formulation of a National IPv6 address policy.

In the 2nd meeting of the committee held on 18th July 2011 in New Delhi, members were of the opinion that India as a whole should request for the reservation of a suitably-sized block of IPv6 addresses from APNIC. This block can be allocated to different organizations by keeping in view the long term planning perspective.

So it was decided that this issue should be taken up with APNIC. As this was a policy related issue, and other economies in the APNIC region may also have similar needs, therefore, the proposal was put up to APNIC for address block reservation at the economy level for subsequent allocation to different organizations within the economies in the APNIC region.

2. Summary ----------

Right now IPv6 addresses are being allocated to individual organizations in different economies by APNIC within a certain policy framework, which was developed in the IPv4 era. But there are certain concerns with the above APNIC policy -

(a) Contiguous address block allocation is not ensured by APNIC when an organization goes back to APNIC for further allocation (reapplying after more than one year)

(b) Non provision of address space for future organizations in economies who are not in a position (or not aware) to ask for addresses at present.

APNIC policy does not currently allow address blocks to be allocated at the economy level, so through this proposal, we are seeking a change in the policy for reservation of adequate IPv6 address space economy wise for further allocation to different organizations and stakeholders within the economy.

3. Situation in other RIRs --------------------------

No other RIRs presently have a program to assess the needs of individual economies in their region and reserve appropriately-sized address blocks. However, economies in other RIRs may have similar needs and a similar program of assessment may be appropriate.

4. Details ----------

In the current policy framework of APNIC, addresses are allocated to different organizations in different economies when they are able to demonstrate their need for those addresses and they apply for them. However, in this process two requirements, mentioned in summary above, are not taken into consideration. In the era of IPv4, when the addresses were in severe shortage, such a demonstrated need policy was relevant but in the era of IPv6 it is not.

IPv6 addresses are in abundance and their planning and distribution is also at a very nascent stage. The main objective of this proposal is to ensure that all economies (and the different present and future organizations in those economies) can ensure they will get a suitable share of the IPv6 address space, in one or more large contiguous blocks, whether they need it now or at a later date. This will also help different organizations in different economies to plan their networks in a more effective manner as they will have a reasonably fair idea of the IPv6 address space allocation in future.

This proposal can be implemented by APNIC in following manner.

(A) Analysis and Projection of Requirements

Each economy in the APNIC region is different in terms of population, population growth rate, GDP growth rate, mobile, internet and broadband penetration growth rate, social requirements etc. There could be many other factors, which could be taken into consideration. These factors would help to make an aggregate estimate of the present and future IPv6 address requirements of all organizations and stakeholders in each economy. The analysis of each economy in the APNIC region could be conducted in one of the following ways -

1. By APNIC, since it has more experience across different economies and different RIRs.

2. Alternatively, a representative body in each economy, which could be the government of that economy or a prominent industry association or any other recognised body, may be approached by APNIC for estimating the needs of that economy. However, in this case APNIC may need to\ conduct awareness programmes for their education and sufficient time is also required for making such estimation.

3. Any other suitable mechanism deemed fit by APNIC for doing such estimation.

Through these analysis and projection estimates, economy wise IPv6 address requirement (based on the requirements of different organizations and stakeholders) will emerge. This process will definitely take some time.

(B) Reservation of the IPv6 address space for different economies (for their organizations and stakeholders) by APNIC

Based on the above projections and estimates, APNIC may keep one or more suitably sized blocks reserved for different economies for ultimate use of organizations and stakeholders of those economies. APNIC may also keep some large blocks unreserved, i.e. not reserved for any economy in the beginning, for any sudden unforeseen requirements in future.

The allocation of addresses from these reserved blocks to organizations and stakeholders in different economies may be done directly by APNIC or through an NIR (wherever existing) as it is doing at present. Ultimately these addresses will be allocated to individual organizations / stakeholders and not to the economy. As an example, in case of India, after some discussions with service providers, internet associations and other stakeholders, an estimate of current and future requirements of a /16 block, initially, has been suggested. However, the firm requirement has to be deliberated based upon a detailed study as suggested above.

Detailed operational issues for implementing this policy, if approved, will have to be deliberated upon separately.

5. Pros/Cons ------------

Advantages:

1. The various IPv6 awareness programmes for different economies, the various studies for estimation of needs of different economies and management of the reserved IPv6 blocks as mentioned above will no doubt increase the job of APNIC in the immediate future, but over a long period of time, this would prove to be very beneficial for IPv6 deployment and also make the job of APNIC easier since APNIC would be very clear on what future allocations it can make.

2. The economies and their organizations will also benefit since they will have a fair idea of what they will get in future and they can plan accordingly for the long term for IPv6 deployment.

Disadvantages:

1. There may be short term workload/financial implications for APNIC for analysis and projection studies, training and awareness etc. These however, should not be a constraint because otherwise also APNIC has to work for IPv6 awareness and its deployment in all economies in APNIC region.

6. Effect on APNIC ------------------

1. It would prove to be very beneficial for IPv6 deployment and also make the job of APNIC easier since APNIC would be very clear on what future allocations it can make.

2. Address allocation will be more organized and orderly.

7. Effect on NIRs -----------------

NIRs can allocate IP addresses to individual members in its geographical area from the reserved blocks as per the actual projections of individual members.

I think this is still a phenomenally bad idea... Comments in-line below:

The Government of India released a national IPv6 policy in July 2010 in which it took the following important decisions –

1. All major service providers will target to handle IPv6 traffic and offer IPv6 services by December 2011

That's excellent!

2. All central and state government ministries and departments, including its PSUs, shall start using IPv6 services by March-2012

Also excellent news.

3. Formation of India IPv6 Task Force

For the implementation of the above policy decisions many discussions were held with service providers and organizations in which they were of the opinion that there should be proper address planning for different organizations within the economy. So taking cue from this, Government of India (Department of Telecommunications) set up a committee for formulation of a National IPv6 address policy.

I'm less convinced that this is such a good idea. In fact, I think such process could be potentially very harmful to India and the people of India in the long run. I think it is good to look at IPv6 addressing policy and consider whether there are ways that the policy can be improved to achieve better aggregation and better service capabilities to end users, better administration by ISPs, etc.

However, placing an entire economy behind a single prefix still continues to ignore a number of operational realities and creates new risks that I do not believe have been properly considered in this process.

1. Economic and National Boundaries usually have little or no relationship to topological boundaries on the internet.

2. Placing an entire economy behind a single prefix which cannot, by definition be aggregated behind a common routing policy due to use by disparate organizations will not improve routing and will not provide any aggregation benefit.

3. Placing an entire economy behind a single prefix does allow anyone who wants to disconnect that economy to do so with a single-line ACL. The prefix will be well known and easily identified. In contrast, current allocation policy might allow a single organization to be targeted in this manner relatively easily, but, because other proximal organizations will not so easily share the same fate, it can be trivial to route around damage imposed by such a move. This makes the internet more resilient and makes it much harder for hostile forces to remove an entire country from some fraction of the internet. The proposal at hand would significantly reduce this resiliency and basically turn each affected country's prefix into multiple single points of failure.

In the 2nd meeting of the committee held on 18th July 2011 in New Delhi, members were of the opinion that India as a whole should request for the reservation of a suitably-sized block of IPv6 addresses from APNIC. This block can be allocated to different organizations by keeping in view the long term planning perspective.

So it was decided that this issue should be taken up with APNIC. As this was a policy related issue, and other economies in the APNIC region may also have similar needs, therefore, the proposal was put up to APNIC for address block reservation at the economy level for subsequent allocation to different organizations within the economies in the APNIC region.

If, in spite of the above concerns, you still feel that this is the best way for India to proceed, I believe that APNIC can set aside a prefix from which to make allocations to India and do so. I don't think this requires policy to be implemented. I think it can be done largely by making a coordinated request with APNIC staff.

2. Summary

---

Right now IPv6 addresses are being allocated to individual organizations in different economies by APNIC within a certain policy framework, which was developed in the IPv4 era. But there are certain concerns with the above APNIC policy -

(a) Contiguous address block allocation is not ensured by APNIC when an organization goes back to APNIC for further allocation (reapplying after more than one year)

While that is true, in there are proposals that deal with this in a better way. Proposal 98 and 99 both offer better alternative solutions to this problem. A national prefix doesn't guarantee this either. It merely guarantees that both fragments will appear with in a single easy-to- filter national prefix which will, by definition of the topological reality be deaggregated when it is advertised to the global internet.

(b) Non provision of address space for future organizations in economies who are not in a position (or not aware) to ask for addresses at present.

This was an issue in IPv4 not because of poor allocation policy in the beginning, but, because IPv4 was repurposed for a radically different application than it was originally designed. IPv4 was intended as a protocol for an experimental network connecting a few universities, research institutions, and government entities. When IPv4 was being designed, noone had even conceived of HTML, HTTP, Gopher, WAIS, or anything remotely resembling the World Wide Web.

For the original intended audience, 3.2 billion unicast addresses was luxurious. When the audience went from a few thousand users at a few hundred locations to 6+ billion users in millions of locations almost over night, the internet engineering community immediately set about to design and develop IPv6. While it has taken longer than it should to do so, and, deployment of IPv6 still lags, I really do not see address allocation policy as a barrier to entry for IPv6 for the foreseeable future. I would happily support these kinds of reservation policies at a time when we begin to invade even the 4th or 5th /3 of IPv6 space, but, at this time when only 1 /3 has been issued for unicast space and only a tiny fraction of a second /3 is used for special use addresses (ULA, multicast, link-local, etc. all from f000/4), I think we are better to keep things topologically aligned and not devolve the internet with geopolitical boundaries that are unrelated to topology.

APNIC policy does not currently allow address blocks to be allocated at the economy level, so through this proposal, we are seeking a change in the policy for reservation of adequate IPv6 address space economy wise for further allocation to different organizations and stakeholders within the economy.

For the reasons stated above, I still think that allocating address blocks at the country or economy level is a phenomenally bad idea.

Owen DeLong Hurricane Electric

(a) Contiguous address block allocation is not ensured by APNIC when an organization goes back to APNIC for further allocation (reapplying after more than one year)

I support addressing this potential problem -- e.g. through propositions 98 or 99.

I agree with this point. I believe that with little to no changes, prop-98 and/or prop-99 will provide most of the benefit that the proposer of prop-100 is seeking.

From the feedback on the list so far, I would advise that the proposer take a look at these other proposals and determine if they fulfil his requirements. It may be the case that through small changes, these other proposals (which have received less negative feedback) could satisfy the requirements equally well.

Regards, Dean

On Aug 29, 2011, at 10:35 PM, Dean Pemberton wrote:

...

(a) Contiguous address block allocation is not ensured by APNIC when an organization goes back to APNIC for further allocation (reapplying after more than one year)

I support addressing this potential problem -- e.g. through propositions 98 or 99.

I agree with this point. I believe that with little to no changes, prop-98 and/or prop-99 will provide most of the benefit that the proposer of prop-100 is seeking.

From the feedback on the list so far, I would advise that the proposer take a look at these other proposals and determine if they fulfil his requirements. It may be the case that through small changes, these other proposals (which have received less negative feedback) could satisfy the requirements equally well.

As the author of Proposal 98, if there is a way it can be tweaked to better meet this need as well, I would be very open to discussing with the author. He is welcome to find me today after the meeting and/or at the social if he would like.

I'm wearing a dark blue Hurricane Electric polo shirt and I look like this guy:

If we have a look at the synopsis and the introduction of prop-99. We can see that it is concerned with allowing members to receive allocations from a single contiguous space. I would say that that would satisfy the contiguous requirement of the prop-100 proposer.

Synopsis This proposal extends the IPv6 request process to allow large ISPs to request multiple prefixes within a single, contiguous, reserved space.

Or the introduction

This proposal extends the IPv6 request process to allow large ISPs to request multiple prefixes within a single, contiguous, reserved space.

Such a request must justify each prefix allocation in terms of specific demonstrated needs (in the same manner as a normal IPv6 allocation request); and must justify the total requested reservation in terms of documented architectural plans and projected space requirements for a period of up to 10 years.

Regards, Dean

Apologies for brevity. Message sent from mobile device

On 30/08/2011, at 3:25 PM, Naresh Ajwani ajwaninaresh@gmail.com wrote:

dear Dean,

...

I agree with this point. I believe that with little to no changes, prop-98 and/or prop-99 will provide most of the benefit that the proposer of prop-100 is seeking.

Kindly explain which part of prop-98/99 is addressing the contgious or other benefits being sought by the proposer.

Regards and best wishes,

Naresh Ajwani Sent from my iPad

On Aug 30, 2011, at 11:05, Dean Pemberton dean@deanpemberton.com wrote:

...

...

(a) Contiguous address block allocation is not ensured by APNIC when an organization goes back to APNIC for further allocation (reapplying after more than one year)

I support addressing this potential problem -- e.g. through propositions 98 or 99.

I agree with this point. I believe that with little to no changes, prop-98 and/or prop-99 will provide most of the benefit that the proposer of prop-100 is seeking.

From the feedback on the list so far, I would advise that the proposer take a look at these other proposals and determine if they fulfil his requirements. It may be the case that through small changes, these other proposals (which have received less negative feedback) could satisfy the requirements equally well.

Regards, Dean

•          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

Andy: Need some clarifications: - Would an organization in India with network in other economies require more v6 blocks outside this India national block? (for instance, ASN 6453) - Would an organization in other economy having network in India be required to use IP in the India national block for the network in India? - Would an organization in India be allowed to request via India NIR or directly via APNIC v6 addresses outside the India national block? (for instance they do not want to risk the one-ACL blackhole risk) - if India would be reserved a /16, what criteria that APNIC would apply for other economies to get equal amount of reservation? Should CNNIC get a /16? How about JPNIC/KRNIC? How about smaller economies but with great potential for growth? Is the criteria population, political, economic or land mass?

Yi Chu

-----Original Message----- From: sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net [mailto:sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net] On Behalf Of Andy Linton Sent: Monday, August 29, 2011 10:27 PM To: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net Subject: [sig-policy] Revised version: prop-100 National IP Address Plan - Allocation of country-wide IP address blocks

I said yesterday that a revised version of the proposal was being worked on. Can we keep our discussions to this version please?

Thanks andy _______________________________________________________________________

prop-100-v001: National IP Address Plan - Allocation of country-wide IP address blocks _______________________________________________________________________

Author: Rakesh Mohan Agarwal ddgnt-dot@nic.in

Version: 2

Date: 30 August 2011

1. Introduction ---------------

A proposal was submitted to APNIC community on 29th July 2011 for the reservation of a contiguous IPv6 address block for different organizations / stakeholders in an economy. In that proposal I have tried to put forward some issues regarding the current practice of APNIC in the allocation of IPv6 addresses.

Further clarifications were given by me on 17/8, 22/8 and 28/8 against various comments and observations received during the period after that also. In the light of the above proposal and clarifications issued by me, I am submitting a revised version of Prop-100 for better understanding of the community members giving some background of why this proposal was submitted by India.

The Government of India released a national IPv6 policy in July 2010 in which it took the following important decisions –

1. All major service providers will target to handle IPv6 traffic and offer IPv6 services by December 2011

2. All central and state government ministries and departments, including its PSUs, shall start using IPv6 services by March-2012

3. Formation of India IPv6 Task Force

For the implementation of the above policy decisions many discussions were held with service providers and organizations in which they were of the opinion that there should be proper address planning for different organizations within the economy. So taking cue from this, Government of India (Department of Telecommunications) set up a committee for formulation of a National IPv6 address policy.

In the 2nd meeting of the committee held on 18th July 2011 in New Delhi, members were of the opinion that India as a whole should request for the reservation of a suitably-sized block of IPv6 addresses from APNIC. This block can be allocated to different organizations by keeping in view the long term planning perspective.

So it was decided that this issue should be taken up with APNIC. As this was a policy related issue, and other economies in the APNIC region may also have similar needs, therefore, the proposal was put up to APNIC for address block reservation at the economy level for subsequent allocation to different organizations within the economies in the APNIC region.

2. Summary ----------

Right now IPv6 addresses are being allocated to individual organizations in different economies by APNIC within a certain policy framework, which was developed in the IPv4 era. But there are certain concerns with the above APNIC policy -

(a) Contiguous address block allocation is not ensured by APNIC when an organization goes back to APNIC for further allocation (reapplying after more than one year)

(b) Non provision of address space for future organizations in economies who are not in a position (or not aware) to ask for addresses at present.

APNIC policy does not currently allow address blocks to be allocated at the economy level, so through this proposal, we are seeking a change in the policy for reservation of adequate IPv6 address space economy wise for further allocation to different organizations and stakeholders within the economy.

3. Situation in other RIRs --------------------------

No other RIRs presently have a program to assess the needs of individual economies in their region and reserve appropriately-sized address blocks. However, economies in other RIRs may have similar needs and a similar program of assessment may be appropriate.

4. Details ----------

In the current policy framework of APNIC, addresses are allocated to different organizations in different economies when they are able to demonstrate their need for those addresses and they apply for them. However, in this process two requirements, mentioned in summary above, are not taken into consideration. In the era of IPv4, when the addresses were in severe shortage, such a demonstrated need policy was relevant but in the era of IPv6 it is not.

IPv6 addresses are in abundance and their planning and distribution is also at a very nascent stage. The main objective of this proposal is to ensure that all economies (and the different present and future organizations in those economies) can ensure they will get a suitable share of the IPv6 address space, in one or more large contiguous blocks, whether they need it now or at a later date. This will also help different organizations in different economies to plan their networks in a more effective manner as they will have a reasonably fair idea of the IPv6 address space allocation in future.

This proposal can be implemented by APNIC in following manner.

(A) Analysis and Projection of Requirements

Each economy in the APNIC region is different in terms of population, population growth rate, GDP growth rate, mobile, internet and broadband penetration growth rate, social requirements etc. There could be many other factors, which could be taken into consideration. These factors would help to make an aggregate estimate of the present and future IPv6 address requirements of all organizations and stakeholders in each economy. The analysis of each economy in the APNIC region could be conducted in one of the following ways -

1. By APNIC, since it has more experience across different economies and different RIRs.

2. Alternatively, a representative body in each economy, which could be the government of that economy or a prominent industry association or any other recognised body, may be approached by APNIC for estimating the needs of that economy. However, in this case APNIC may need to\ conduct awareness programmes for their education and sufficient time is also required for making such estimation.

3. Any other suitable mechanism deemed fit by APNIC for doing such estimation.

Through these analysis and projection estimates, economy wise IPv6 address requirement (based on the requirements of different organizations and stakeholders) will emerge. This process will definitely take some time.

(B) Reservation of the IPv6 address space for different economies (for their organizations and stakeholders) by APNIC

Based on the above projections and estimates, APNIC may keep one or more suitably sized blocks reserved for different economies for ultimate use of organizations and stakeholders of those economies. APNIC may also keep some large blocks unreserved, i.e. not reserved for any economy in the beginning, for any sudden unforeseen requirements in future.

The allocation of addresses from these reserved blocks to organizations and stakeholders in different economies may be done directly by APNIC or through an NIR (wherever existing) as it is doing at present. Ultimately these addresses will be allocated to individual organizations / stakeholders and not to the economy. As an example, in case of India, after some discussions with service providers, internet associations and other stakeholders, an estimate of current and future requirements of a /16 block, initially, has been suggested. However, the firm requirement has to be deliberated based upon a detailed study as suggested above.

Detailed operational issues for implementing this policy, if approved, will have to be deliberated upon separately.

5. Pros/Cons ------------

Advantages:

1. The various IPv6 awareness programmes for different economies, the various studies for estimation of needs of different economies and management of the reserved IPv6 blocks as mentioned above will no doubt increase the job of APNIC in the immediate future, but over a long period of time, this would prove to be very beneficial for IPv6 deployment and also make the job of APNIC easier since APNIC would be very clear on what future allocations it can make.

2. The economies and their organizations will also benefit since they will have a fair idea of what they will get in future and they can plan accordingly for the long term for IPv6 deployment.

Disadvantages:

1. There may be short term workload/financial implications for APNIC for analysis and projection studies, training and awareness etc. These however, should not be a constraint because otherwise also APNIC has to work for IPv6 awareness and its deployment in all economies in APNIC region.

6. Effect on APNIC ------------------

1. It would prove to be very beneficial for IPv6 deployment and also make the job of APNIC easier since APNIC would be very clear on what future allocations it can make.

2. Address allocation will be more organized and orderly.

7. Effect on NIRs -----------------

NIRs can allocate IP addresses to individual members in its geographical area from the reserved blocks as per the actual projections of individual members. * 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

________________________________

This e-mail may contain Sprint Nextel proprietary information intended for the sole use of the recipient(s). Any use by others is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies of the message.

Dear Aj, In my opinion, the projects Like "Unique Identification" for each citizen of large populated economies can help us to relate the requirement better. Having said that, does it need a policy change needs more thought and debate.

Regards and best wishes,

Naresh Ajwani Sent from my iPad

On Aug 29, 2011, at 6:44, "Alastair Johnson" aj@sneep.net wrote:

Hello Naresh,

Could we please have more information on this project? Hopefully that will allow all to understand the requirement for prop-100 better.

I currently see no technical benefits to prop-100, and when you are "selling" to a technical community having no technical benefits is a hard conversation.

More info will help.

Regards, aj

-----Original Message----- From: Naresh Ajwani ajwaninaresh@gmail.com Sender: sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2011 06:18:59 To: Skeeve StevensSkeeve@eintellego.net Cc: Randy Bushrandy@psg.com; sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.netsig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net; sig-policy@lists.apnic.netsig-policy@lists.apnic.net Subject: Re: [sig-policy] FW: prop-100 National IP Address Plan - Allocationof country-wide IP address blocks

Dear Skeeve,

When I referred to respecting views, it was precisely over this thought that only skilled and experienced engineers can have opinions. :-)

Frankly, this proposal, while not limited to any specific country has a requirement for one large project in India.In my opinion, the same can be applied for without going through this policy process. Please comment.

Regards and best wishes,

Naresh Ajwani Sent from my iPad

On Aug 28, 2011, at 7:48, Skeeve Stevens Skeeve@eintellego.net wrote:

...

Naresh,

I realise that you think that people are not respecting views here in some casesŠ but the problem I see is that it is not a case of respect in this case.

It is a simple matter of technical implementation and practicality and you are hearing the opinions of many many highly skilled and experienced engineers who have worked for large carriers and build world wide networks.

India is no different to any other nation with regards to how its networks are built and runŠ you have to understand that we are all the same, and that the collective experience of the people who go to the APNIC conference is the most valuable opinion you will EVER get.

ŠSkeeve

-- Skeeve Stevens, CEO - eintellego Pty Ltd - The Networking Specialists skeeve@eintellego.net ; www.eintellego.net Phone: 1300 753 383 ; Fax: (+612) 8572 9954 Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve facebook.com/eintellego or eintellego@facebook.com twitter.com/networkceoau ; www.linkedin.com/in/skeeve PO Box 7726, Baulkham Hills, NSW 1755 Australia

-- eintellego - The Experts that the Experts call

• Juniper - HP Networking - Cisco - Brocade

-----Original Message----- From: ajwaninaresh@gmail.com Reply-To: ajwaninaresh@gmail.com Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2011 19:22:30 +0000 To: Randy Bush randy@psg.com, sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net, sig-policy@lists.apnic.net Subject: Re: [sig-policy] FW: prop-100 National IP Address Plan - Allocationof country-wide IP address blocks

...

Also, one hour tutorial shud take place on respecting views.

Regards,

Naresh Ajwani ------Original Message------ From: Randy Bush Sender: sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net To: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net Sent: Aug 27, 2011 11:54 PM Subject: Re: [sig-policy] FW: prop-100 National IP Address Plan - Allocationof country-wide IP address blocks

apnic meeting organizers and policy sig chairs,

at this late date, is it possible to add a one hour tutorial on inter-domain routing basics to the front of the policy sig meeting? it appears as if we are going to need it to have the discussion of prop-100 be at all reality based.

if pfs won't give it, i will.

randy

•          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

Sent from my BlackBerry® smartphone from Tata Indicom

•          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

•          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

Thanks for your thoughts-all stakeholders are equally important for our APNIC's success.

Regards and best wishes,

Naresh Ajwani Sent from my iPad

On Aug 29, 2011, at 8:49, Skeeve Stevens Skeeve@eintellego.net wrote:

Dear Naresh,

Do not misunderstand... while engineers opinions are critical, the opinions of policy makers, sovereign requirements should also be taken into consideration.

I agree with you very much that this is not just a requirement for India and a wider policy covering the requirements of Prop-100 and perhaps Prop-99 could come to fruition. I believe there have been some very valuable discussions happening over the last 48 hours which I believe, if it is implemented well, with considered input from engineers, policy makers and others, would address the requirements of all regions requiring reservations of address space.

...Skeeve

-- Skeeve Stevens, CEO - eintellego Pty Ltd - The Networking Specialists skeeve@eintellego.net ; www.eintellego.net Phone: 1300 753 383 ; Fax: (+612) 8572 9954 Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve facebook.com/eintellego or eintellego@facebook.com twitter.com/networkceoau ; www.linkedin.com/in/skeeve PO Box 7726, Baulkham Hills, NSW 1755 Australia

-- eintellego - The Experts that the Experts call

• Juniper - HP Networking - Cisco - Brocade

-----Original Message----- From: Naresh Ajwani ajwaninaresh@gmail.com Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2011 06:18:59 +0530 To: Skeeve Stevens skeeve@eintellego.net Cc: Randy Bush randy@psg.com, "sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net" sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net, "sig-policy@lists.apnic.net" sig-policy@lists.apnic.net Subject: Re: [sig-policy] FW: prop-100 National IP Address Plan - Allocationof country-wide IP address blocks

...

Dear Skeeve,

When I referred to respecting views, it was precisely over this thought that only skilled and experienced engineers can have opinions. :-)

Frankly, this proposal, while not limited to any specific country has a requirement for one large project in India.In my opinion, the same can be applied for without going through this policy process. Please comment.

Regards and best wishes,

Naresh Ajwani Sent from my iPad

On Aug 28, 2011, at 7:48, Skeeve Stevens Skeeve@eintellego.net wrote:

...

Naresh,

I realise that you think that people are not respecting views here in some casesŠ but the problem I see is that it is not a case of respect in this case.

It is a simple matter of technical implementation and practicality and you are hearing the opinions of many many highly skilled and experienced engineers who have worked for large carriers and build world wide networks.

India is no different to any other nation with regards to how its networks are built and runŠ you have to understand that we are all the same, and that the collective experience of the people who go to the APNIC conference is the most valuable opinion you will EVER get.

ŠSkeeve

-- Skeeve Stevens, CEO - eintellego Pty Ltd - The Networking Specialists skeeve@eintellego.net ; www.eintellego.net Phone: 1300 753 383 ; Fax: (+612) 8572 9954 Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve facebook.com/eintellego or eintellego@facebook.com twitter.com/networkceoau ; www.linkedin.com/in/skeeve PO Box 7726, Baulkham Hills, NSW 1755 Australia

-- eintellego - The Experts that the Experts call

• Juniper - HP Networking - Cisco - Brocade

-----Original Message----- From: ajwaninaresh@gmail.com Reply-To: ajwaninaresh@gmail.com Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2011 19:22:30 +0000 To: Randy Bush randy@psg.com, sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net, sig-policy@lists.apnic.net Subject: Re: [sig-policy] FW: prop-100 National IP Address Plan - Allocationof country-wide IP address blocks

...

Also, one hour tutorial shud take place on respecting views.

Regards,

Naresh Ajwani ------Original Message------ From: Randy Bush Sender: sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net To: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net Sent: Aug 27, 2011 11:54 PM Subject: Re: [sig-policy] FW: prop-100 National IP Address Plan - Allocationof country-wide IP address blocks

apnic meeting organizers and policy sig chairs,

at this late date, is it possible to add a one hour tutorial on inter-domain routing basics to the front of the policy sig meeting? it appears as if we are going to need it to have the discussion of prop-100 be at all reality based.

if pfs won't give it, i will.

randy

•          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

Sent from my BlackBerry(R) smartphone from Tata Indicom

•          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