Orbit

Could one of the authors please clarify whether the intent is that the expansion of criteria proposed in 4.3 still requires the organisation concerned to be an APNIC account holder?

Also, I'm a little concerned about "Small multihoming assignments" being specified as grounds for a /24 unless it's explicitly associated with either Internet Exchange Points or Critical infrastructure - my concern being that I wouldn't want to encourage requests from "hobby" or non-professional networks for a /24 from the final /8 policy simply because they met a multihoming criteria, and I don't think that's the intent of the proposal.

Thanks,

David Woodgate

At 02:04 PM 25/01/2011, Gaurab Raj Upadhaya wrote:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1

New version with a minor update. Added Andy Linton as one of the authors.

• • Gaurab, Ching-Heng, and Terence

Dear SIG members,

The proposal, 'Reducing the minimum delegation size for the final /8 policy', has been sent to the Policy SIG for review. It will be presented at the Policy SIG at APNIC 31 in Hong Kong SAR, China, 21-25 February 2011.

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

Gaurab, Ching-Heng, and Terence

prop-093-v001: Reducing the minimum delegation size for the final /8 policy ________________________________________________________________________

Author: Randy Bush randy@psg.com

        Philip Smith
        <pfs@cisco.com>

        Andy Linton
        <asjl@lpnz.org>

Version: 1

Date: 24 January 2011

1. Introduction

This is a proposal to change the minimum size of IPv4 delegations to a /24 when the final /8 policy [1] is activated.

1. Summary of current problem

The current final /8 allocation policy requires networks to meet the requirements for the minimum allocation size currently in place: currently a /22. To justify a /22 allocation, a network must demonstrate, amongst other things, an immediate need for a /24 and a detailed plan for use of a /23 within a year. However, this could prevent small networks, that may be multihomed, operating critical Internet infrastructure, or connecting to IXPs, or running IPv6 transition tools such as NAT64, from justifying a need for IPv4 addresses under the final /8 policy.

1. Situation in other RIRs

There is no similar policy or proposal in other regions.

1. Details of the proposal

It is proposed that when APNIC enters the phase of the final /8 policy[1]:

4.1 The minimum delegation size be set to a /24.

4.2 The maximum delegation size any one organisation can receive from the final /8 be set to a /22.

  Note: This means that an organisation which has received a single
        /24 under this proposal is entitled to request and receive
        additional IPv4 address(es) from APNIC until it has received
        up to a total of a /22.

4.3 Criteria for delegations under the final /8 policy will accordingly be expanded to include the following criteria:

  - Small multihoming assignments
  - Internet Exchange Points
  - Critical infrastructure

1. Advantages and disadvantages of the proposal

5.1 Advantages

  - 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 65,000 networks, providing small amounts of
    IPv4 to be available for networks, end site, etc., making the
    transition to IPv6 for many years to come.

5.2 Disadvantages

  - No disadvantages are foreseen.

1. Effect on APNIC members

It reduces the minimum size of the delegated address block available to APNIC members during the final /8 phase.

1. Effect on NIRs

This will affect NIR members in the same way as APNIC members.

1. References

[1] Section 9.10 "Distribution of the final /8 worth of space in the unallocated APNIC IPv4 address pool" of "Policies for IPv4 address space management in the Asia Pacific region" http://www.apnic.net/policy/add-manage-policy#9.10

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.16 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAk0+PagACgkQSo7fU26F3X1xwACgiVw8VSbCK+uFZKZdVgzJSF2h 9N8AoLGcqcRHfMdlemg0ci3yib/Hv78t =oSkC -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

•          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

On 1/24/2011 10:04 PM, Gaurab Raj Upadhaya wrote:

New version with a minor update. Added Andy Linton as one of the authors.

• • Gaurab, Ching-Heng, and Terence

Dear SIG members,

The proposal, 'Reducing the minimum delegation size for the final /8 policy', has been sent to the Policy SIG for review. It will be presented at the Policy SIG at APNIC 31 in Hong Kong SAR, China, 21-25 February 2011.

I support this proposal. -- Randy Whitney