Keyboard Shortcuts
Thread View
j
: Next unread messagek
: Previous unread messagej a
: Jump to all threadsj l
: Jump to MailingList overview

Dear SIG members,
The proposal, 'Removal of IPv4 prefix exchange policy', has been sent to the Policy SIG for review. It will be presented at the Policy SIG at APNIC 29 in Kuala Lumpur, 1-5 March 2010.
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 and other policy proposals is available from:
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals
Randy, Ching-Heng, and Terence
________________________________________________________________________
prop-080-v001: Removal of IPv4 prefix exchange policy ________________________________________________________________________
Authors: Guangliang Pan gpan@apnic.net
Version: 1
Date: 29 January 2010
1. Introduction ----------------
This is a proposal to remove the policy that currently permits resource holders to return three or more noncontiguous IPv4 address blocks and have the prefixes replaced with a single, larger, contiguous block.
2. Summary of current problem ------------------------------
Current APNIC policy[1] permits organizations to exchange three or more IPv4 prefixes and receive a single portable CIDR range of equal length or one bit shorter.
Such exchanges may be requested without the requirement to document the efficiency of existing assignments and the usage rates.
At the time this policy was introduced, it served a good purpose: it aimed to encourage return of noncontiguous small historical blocks to help reduce the size of the global routing table.
However, as the remaining unallocated IPv4 addresses continue to be depleted, it will become increasingly difficult for APNIC to fulfil requests made under this prefix exchange policy.
3. Situation in other RIRs ---------------------------
ARIN has two policies related to exchanging noncontiguous prefixes. For more information, see section 4.6, "Amnesty and Aggregation Requests" and section 4.7, "Aggregation Requests" in the ARIN Number Resource Policy Manual at:
https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html
AfriNIC, LACNIC and RIPE have no similar prefix exchange policies.
4. Details of the proposal ---------------------------
It is proposed that APNIC remove the policy that enables networks to exchange noncontiguous address blocks in exchange for a single, aggregated range.
5. Advantages and disadvantages of the proposal ------------------------------------------------
5.1 Advantages
- It removes a policy responsibility that APNIC will not able to fulfil during the IPv4 exhaustion period.
- It prevents organizations taking advantage of the exchange policy to obtain more IPv4 addresses from APNIC by rounding up to the next bit without justification of the need.
This is of particular concern as the remaining unallocated IPv4 pool becomes smaller.
5.2 Disadvantages
- It prevents organizations willing to renumber and aggregate address blocks from being able to do so. However, given the fragmentation of the global routing table for other reasons during the IPv4 address exhaustion period, this is a minor disadvantage, that will have very little adverse impact on the size of the global routing table.
6. Effect on APNIC members ---------------------------
This proposal will prevent APNIC members from exchanging noncontiguous prefixes for a single prefix. However, as noted in the "Disadvantages" section above, this inability to aggregate routes is not likely to have a significant impact on the size of the global routing table during the IPv4 address exhaustion period.
7. Effect on NIRs ------------------
NIR members will also be prevented from exchanging noncontiguous prefixes for a single prefix.
8. References --------------- [1] See:
Section 11.4, "Renumbering to promote aggregation" in "Policies for IPv4 address space management in the Asia Pacific region", http://www.apnic.net/policy/add-manage-policy
Section 7, "Historical prefix exchange policy" in "Policies for historical Internet resources in the APNIC Whois Database", http://www.apnic.net/policy/historical-resource-policies

Dear Guangliang,
It is a question for clarification. How often is this policy used recently? (even though I guess it is quite few.)
Rgs, Masato YAMANISHI Softbank BB Corp.
-----Original Message----- From: sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net [mailto:sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net] On Behalf Of Randy Bush Sent: Friday, January 29, 2010 5:05 PM To: Policy SIG Subject: [sig-policy] prop-080: Removal of IPv4 prefix exchange policy
Dear SIG members,
The proposal, 'Removal of IPv4 prefix exchange policy', has been sent to the Policy SIG for review. It will be presented at the Policy SIG at APNIC 29 in Kuala Lumpur, 1-5 March 2010.
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 and other policy proposals is available from:
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals
Randy, Ching-Heng, and Terence
prop-080-v001: Removal of IPv4 prefix exchange policy ______________________________________________________________ __________
Authors: Guangliang Pan gpan@apnic.net
Version: 1
Date: 29 January 2010
- Introduction
This is a proposal to remove the policy that currently permits resource holders to return three or more noncontiguous IPv4 address blocks and have the prefixes replaced with a single, larger, contiguous block.
- Summary of current problem
Current APNIC policy[1] permits organizations to exchange three or more IPv4 prefixes and receive a single portable CIDR range of equal length or one bit shorter.
Such exchanges may be requested without the requirement to document the efficiency of existing assignments and the usage rates.
At the time this policy was introduced, it served a good purpose: it aimed to encourage return of noncontiguous small historical blocks to help reduce the size of the global routing table.
However, as the remaining unallocated IPv4 addresses continue to be depleted, it will become increasingly difficult for APNIC to fulfil requests made under this prefix exchange policy.
- Situation in other RIRs
ARIN has two policies related to exchanging noncontiguous prefixes. For more information, see section 4.6, "Amnesty and Aggregation Requests" and section 4.7, "Aggregation Requests" in the ARIN Number Resource Policy Manual at:
https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html
AfriNIC, LACNIC and RIPE have no similar prefix exchange policies.
- Details of the proposal
It is proposed that APNIC remove the policy that enables networks to exchange noncontiguous address blocks in exchange for a single, aggregated range.
- Advantages and disadvantages of the proposal
5.1 Advantages
- It removes a policy responsibility that APNIC will not able to fulfil during the IPv4 exhaustion period. - It prevents organizations taking advantage of the
exchange policy to obtain more IPv4 addresses from APNIC by rounding up to the next bit without justification of the need.
This is of particular concern as the remaining unallocated IPv4 pool becomes smaller.
5.2 Disadvantages
- It prevents organizations willing to renumber and aggregate address blocks from being able to do so. However, given the fragmentation of the global routing table for other
reasons during the IPv4 address exhaustion period, this is a minor disadvantage, that will have very little adverse impact on the size of the global routing table.
- Effect on APNIC members
This proposal will prevent APNIC members from exchanging noncontiguous prefixes for a single prefix. However, as noted in the "Disadvantages" section above, this inability to aggregate routes is not likely to have a significant impact on the size of the global routing table during the IPv4 address exhaustion period.
- Effect on NIRs
NIR members will also be prevented from exchanging noncontiguous prefixes for a single prefix.
- References
[1] See:
Section 11.4, "Renumbering to promote aggregation" in
"Policies for IPv4 address space management in the Asia Pacific region", http://www.apnic.net/policy/add-manage-policy
Section 7, "Historical prefix exchange policy" in
"Policies for historical Internet resources in the APNIC Whois Database", http://www.apnic.net/policy/historical-resource-policies
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 Masato,
Your guess is right :) There are only 10 cases used this policy so far. I have listed the years they happened and the sizes exchanged for all cases below.
2003 /21 2005 /19 2005 /18 2005 /22 2006 /14 2007 /21 2008 /22 2009 /21 2009 /21 2009 /21
I hope the above information is of assistance.
Best regards,
Guangliang ==========
myamanis@bb.softbank.co.jp wrote:
Dear Guangliang,
It is a question for clarification. How often is this policy used recently? (even though I guess it is quite few.)
Rgs, Masato YAMANISHI Softbank BB Corp.
-----Original Message----- From: sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net [mailto:sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net] On Behalf Of Randy Bush Sent: Friday, January 29, 2010 5:05 PM To: Policy SIG Subject: [sig-policy] prop-080: Removal of IPv4 prefix exchange policy
Dear SIG members,
The proposal, 'Removal of IPv4 prefix exchange policy', has been sent to the Policy SIG for review. It will be presented at the Policy SIG at APNIC 29 in Kuala Lumpur, 1-5 March 2010.
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 and other policy proposals is available from:
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals
Randy, Ching-Heng, and Terence
prop-080-v001: Removal of IPv4 prefix exchange policy ______________________________________________________________ __________
Authors: Guangliang Pan gpan@apnic.net
Version: 1
Date: 29 January 2010
- Introduction
This is a proposal to remove the policy that currently permits resource holders to return three or more noncontiguous IPv4 address blocks and have the prefixes replaced with a single, larger, contiguous block.
- Summary of current problem
Current APNIC policy[1] permits organizations to exchange three or more IPv4 prefixes and receive a single portable CIDR range of equal length or one bit shorter.
Such exchanges may be requested without the requirement to document the efficiency of existing assignments and the usage rates.
At the time this policy was introduced, it served a good purpose: it aimed to encourage return of noncontiguous small historical blocks to help reduce the size of the global routing table.
However, as the remaining unallocated IPv4 addresses continue to be depleted, it will become increasingly difficult for APNIC to fulfil requests made under this prefix exchange policy.
- Situation in other RIRs
ARIN has two policies related to exchanging noncontiguous prefixes. For more information, see section 4.6, "Amnesty and Aggregation Requests" and section 4.7, "Aggregation Requests" in the ARIN Number Resource Policy Manual at:
https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html
AfriNIC, LACNIC and RIPE have no similar prefix exchange policies.
- Details of the proposal
It is proposed that APNIC remove the policy that enables networks to exchange noncontiguous address blocks in exchange for a single, aggregated range.
- Advantages and disadvantages of the proposal
5.1 Advantages
- It removes a policy responsibility that APNIC will not able to fulfil during the IPv4 exhaustion period. - It prevents organizations taking advantage of the
exchange policy to obtain more IPv4 addresses from APNIC by rounding up to the next bit without justification of the need.
This is of particular concern as the remaining unallocated IPv4 pool becomes smaller.
5.2 Disadvantages
- It prevents organizations willing to renumber and aggregate address blocks from being able to do so. However, given the fragmentation of the global routing table for other
reasons during the IPv4 address exhaustion period, this is a minor disadvantage, that will have very little adverse impact on the size of the global routing table.
- Effect on APNIC members
This proposal will prevent APNIC members from exchanging noncontiguous prefixes for a single prefix. However, as noted in the "Disadvantages" section above, this inability to aggregate routes is not likely to have a significant impact on the size of the global routing table during the IPv4 address exhaustion period.
- Effect on NIRs
NIR members will also be prevented from exchanging noncontiguous prefixes for a single prefix.
- References
[1] See:
Section 11.4, "Renumbering to promote aggregation" in
"Policies for IPv4 address space management in the Asia Pacific region", http://www.apnic.net/policy/add-manage-policy
Section 7, "Historical prefix exchange policy" in
"Policies for historical Internet resources in the APNIC Whois Database", http://www.apnic.net/policy/historical-resource-policies
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

Seems pretty insignificant usage of the policy.
I support this proposal to remove this policy.
...Skeeve
-- Skeeve Stevens, CEO/Technical Director 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 www.linkedin.com/in/skeeve ; facebook.com/eintellego -- NOC, NOC, who's there?
-----Original Message----- From: sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net [mailto:sig-policy- bounces@lists.apnic.net] On Behalf Of Guangliang Pan Sent: Wednesday, 3 February 2010 12:21 PM To: myamanis@bb.softbank.co.jp Cc: sig-policy@apnic.net Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-080: Removal of IPv4 prefix exchange policy
Dear Masato,
Your guess is right :) There are only 10 cases used this policy so far. I have listed the years they happened and the sizes exchanged for all cases below.
2003 /21 2005 /19 2005 /18 2005 /22 2006 /14 2007 /21 2008 /22 2009 /21 2009 /21 2009 /21
I hope the above information is of assistance.
Best regards,
Guangliang
myamanis@bb.softbank.co.jp wrote:
Dear Guangliang,
It is a question for clarification. How often is this policy used recently? (even though I guess it is quite few.)
Rgs, Masato YAMANISHI Softbank BB Corp.
-----Original Message----- From: sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net [mailto:sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net] On Behalf Of Randy Bush Sent: Friday, January 29, 2010 5:05 PM To: Policy SIG Subject: [sig-policy] prop-080: Removal of IPv4 prefix exchange
policy
Dear SIG members,
The proposal, 'Removal of IPv4 prefix exchange policy', has been sent to the Policy SIG for review. It will be presented at the Policy SIG at APNIC 29 in Kuala Lumpur, 1-5 March 2010.
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 and other policy proposals is available from:
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals
Randy, Ching-Heng, and Terence
prop-080-v001: Removal of IPv4 prefix exchange policy ______________________________________________________________ __________
Authors: Guangliang Pan gpan@apnic.net
Version: 1
Date: 29 January 2010
- Introduction
This is a proposal to remove the policy that currently permits resource holders to return three or more noncontiguous IPv4 address blocks
and
have the prefixes replaced with a single, larger, contiguous block.
- Summary of current problem
Current APNIC policy[1] permits organizations to exchange three or more IPv4 prefixes and receive a single portable CIDR range of equal
length
or one bit shorter.
Such exchanges may be requested without the requirement to document the efficiency of existing assignments and the usage rates.
At the time this policy was introduced, it served a good purpose: it aimed to encourage return of noncontiguous small historical blocks
to
help reduce the size of the global routing table.
However, as the remaining unallocated IPv4 addresses continue to be depleted, it will become increasingly difficult for APNIC to fulfil requests made under this prefix exchange policy.
- Situation in other RIRs
ARIN has two policies related to exchanging noncontiguous prefixes. For more information, see section 4.6, "Amnesty and Aggregation
Requests"
and section 4.7, "Aggregation Requests" in the ARIN Number Resource Policy Manual at:
https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html
AfriNIC, LACNIC and RIPE have no similar prefix exchange policies.
- Details of the proposal
It is proposed that APNIC remove the policy that enables networks to exchange noncontiguous address blocks in exchange for a single, aggregated range.
- Advantages and disadvantages of the proposal
5.1 Advantages
- It removes a policy responsibility that APNIC will not able
to
fulfil during the IPv4 exhaustion period. - It prevents organizations taking advantage of the
exchange policy to obtain more IPv4 addresses from APNIC by rounding up to
the
next bit without justification of the need. This is of particular concern as the remaining unallocated
IPv4
pool becomes smaller.
5.2 Disadvantages
- It prevents organizations willing to renumber and aggregate address blocks from being able to do so. However, given the fragmentation of the global routing table for other
reasons during the IPv4 address exhaustion period, this is a minor disadvantage, that will have very little adverse impact on the size of the global routing table.
- Effect on APNIC members
This proposal will prevent APNIC members from exchanging
noncontiguous
prefixes for a single prefix. However, as noted in the
"Disadvantages"
section above, this inability to aggregate routes is not likely to have a significant impact on the size of the global routing table during the IPv4 address exhaustion period.
- Effect on NIRs
NIR members will also be prevented from exchanging noncontiguous prefixes for a single prefix.
- References
[1] See:
Section 11.4, "Renumbering to promote aggregation" in
"Policies for IPv4 address space management in the Asia Pacific
region",
http://www.apnic.net/policy/add-manage-policy Section 7, "Historical prefix exchange policy" in
"Policies for historical Internet resources in the APNIC Whois Database", http://www.apnic.net/policy/historical-resource-policies
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

I support this policy change.
andy

Dear Guangliang and Andy,
Sorry for late reply, but I also support it.
Rgs, Masato Yamanishi Softbank BB Corp.
-----Original Message----- From: sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net [mailto:sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net] On Behalf Of Andy Linton Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 5:26 AM To: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-080: Removal of IPv4 prefix exchange policy
I support this policy change.
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
Activity Summary
- 4984 days inactive
- 4984 days old
- sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
- 5 participants
- 5 comments