Keyboard Shortcuts
Thread View
j: Next unread messagek: Previous unread messagej a: Jump to all threadsj l: Jump to MailingList overview
[sig-policy] prop-063: Reducing timeframe of IPv4 allocations from twelve to six months
Dear SIG members
Version 2 of the proposal "Reducing timeframe of IPv4 allocations from twelve to six months" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.
It will be presented at the Policy SIG at APNIC 27 in Manila, Philippines, 23-27 February 2009.
The proposal's history can be found at:
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-063-v002.html
This new version of the proposal contains the following two changes:
- A new sentence has been added to the end of section 2, "Summary
of the current problem".
- A new section 4.1, "Allocations exempted from the proposed
policy", has been added.
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?
randy and jian
________________________________________________________________________
prop-063-v002: Reducing timeframe of IPv4 allocations from twelve to
six months
________________________________________________________________________
Authors: Philip Smith
pfs@cisco.com
Randy Bush
randy@psg.com
Jonny Martin
jonny@jonnynet.net
Version: 2
Date: 17 February 2009
1. Introduction
----------------
This is a proposal to change the timeframe APNIC uses to make IPv4 allocations to meet LIRs' needs from twelve months to six months.
2. Summary of current problem
------------------------------
APNIC currently makes IPv4 allocations to LIRs to meet their addressing needs for up to twelve months. In the IPv4 run out phase, this means that any LIR applying for IPv4 address space will receive sufficient addresses for their projected needs for the next 12 months. With the rapidly diminishing pool, this is very likely to cause unfair distribution of the remaining IPv4 pool. In addition, as the date of the end of the IANA IPv4 free pool approaches, having a 12 month allocation window makes less and less logical sense as it estimates usage past when there is anything left to use.
3. Situation in other RIRs
---------------------------
This proposal has not been submitted to the other RIRs.
AfriNIC, ARIN, LACNIC and RIPE currently make IPv4 allocations based on an LIR's estimated needs for up to twelve months.
4. Details of the proposal
---------------------------
It is proposed that APNIC change the timeframe for which IPv4 allocations are made to to meet LIR's needs from twelve months to six months.
This means that an organisation applying for IPv4 address space will only receive sufficient address space for their needs for the upcoming six months. Once that six month allocation has run out, the organisation will need to apply for another six month allocation.
4.1 Allocations exempted from the proposed policy
LIRs requesting the current minimum allocation size will be exempt
from the proposal and will continue to have a 12 month timeframe
in which to justify need for address space.
5. Advantages and disadvantages of the proposal
------------------------------------------------
5.1 Advantages
- Ensures that there is a more even distribution of the remaining
IPv4 address pool.
- Ensures that organisations have a greater opportunity to
participate in the remaining IPv4 address pool during the runout
phase.
5.2 Disadvantages
- Organisations applying for IPv4 address space only receive
sufficient resources for the next six months.
- Organisations applying for IPv4 address space may have double
the annual application administration to perform. APNIC
Secretariat may also have double the administration to perform.
6. Effect on APNIC members
---------------------------
The proposal impacts all APNIC members.
7. Effect on NIRs
------------------
The proposal has no direct impact on NIRS, but impacts members of NIRs in the same way it impacts APNIC members.
On 17/02/2009, at 9:24 PM, zhangjian wrote:
Dear SIG members
We encourage you to express your views on the proposal:
- Do you support or oppose this proposal?
I do support this proposal, although can someone from APNIC provide a small summary on * the number of existing policies this affects, and what are they. * an expected impact on APNIC based on current 12 month windows given to members. * Any procedural changes that APNIC would have to undergo to support this policy.
my questions centre around the cost/benefit ratio. And the past million (and I _never_ exaggerate) APNIC meetings the fiscal state of APNIC has been under discussion. Adding extra work which equates to extra resources required (or less of other apnic services) may be one side effect.
- Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear?
Six months seems pretty arbitrary, was consideration given for a floating scale? ie allocated more == larger window, smaller allocation == smaller window?
I don't quite understand why the minimum allocation is exempt. Can you explain your reason?
My mental logic says that if you get a small allocation, you are going to use it up faster than a large allocation. So if I was a growing business that got the minimum and then found a heap of customers by the roadside, I would, ideally, come back for more address space than deploy NATs.
or is this a bgp table growth concern reflected therein?
Cheers Terry
Terry,
I believe the change was made to make the minimum allocation exempt because otherwise you effectively require that the smallest class of APNIC members should double in size.
[I.e. A requestor may need and be able to justify a /22 for 12 months, but may not be able to justify a /22 for 6 months.]
Regards,
David
At 10:07 AM 18/02/2009, Terry Manderson wrote:
On 17/02/2009, at 9:24 PM, zhangjian wrote:
Dear SIG members
We encourage you to express your views on the proposal:
- Do you support or oppose this proposal?I do support this proposal, although can someone from APNIC provide a small summary on * the number of existing policies this affects, and what are they. * an expected impact on APNIC based on current 12 month windows given to members. * Any procedural changes that APNIC would have to undergo to support this policy.
my questions centre around the cost/benefit ratio. And the past million (and I _never_ exaggerate) APNIC meetings the fiscal state of APNIC has been under discussion. Adding extra work which equates to extra resources required (or less of other apnic services) may be one side effect.
- Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear?Six months seems pretty arbitrary, was consideration given for a floating scale? ie allocated more == larger window, smaller allocation == smaller window?
I don't quite understand why the minimum allocation is exempt. Can you explain your reason?
My mental logic says that if you get a small allocation, you are going to use it up faster than a large allocation. So if I was a growing business that got the minimum and then found a heap of customers by the roadside, I would, ideally, come back for more address space than deploy NATs.
or is this a bgp table growth concern reflected therein?
Cheers Terry
sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource managementpolicy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
Hi David,
On 20/02/2009, at 12:52 PM, David Woodgate wrote:
I believe the change was made to make the minimum allocation exempt because otherwise you effectively require that the smallest class of APNIC members should double in size.
Interesting.
[I.e. A requestor may need and be able to justify a /22 for 12 months, but may not be able to justify a /22 for 6 months.]
So, to play devil's advocate, this policy really provides an advantage to the large players who can justify a larger utilisation than the minimum allocation in a 6 month period (such that membership class is less of an issue)??
I might have thought that in the "run out phase" we might be more considerate of those smaller ISPs who might exist in slightly less developed countries, who cannot justify the /22 in 6 months but might still like to get 'even distribution'.
Just a thought - although happy to hear arguments/assurances that such small entities wouldn't be disadvantaged.
Terry
Regards,
DavidAt 10:07 AM 18/02/2009, Terry Manderson wrote:
On 17/02/2009, at 9:24 PM, zhangjian wrote:
Dear SIG members
We encourage you to express your views on the proposal:
- Do you support or oppose this proposal?I do support this proposal, although can someone from APNIC provide a small summary on * the number of existing policies this affects, and what are they. * an expected impact on APNIC based on current 12 month windows given to members. * Any procedural changes that APNIC would have to undergo to support this policy.
my questions centre around the cost/benefit ratio. And the past million (and I _never_ exaggerate) APNIC meetings the fiscal state of APNIC has been under discussion. Adding extra work which equates to extra resources required (or less of other apnic services) may be one side effect.
- Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear?Six months seems pretty arbitrary, was consideration given for a floating scale? ie allocated more == larger window, smaller allocation == smaller window?
I don't quite understand why the minimum allocation is exempt. Can you explain your reason?
My mental logic says that if you get a small allocation, you are going to use it up faster than a large allocation. So if I was a growing business that got the minimum and then found a heap of customers by the roadside, I would, ideally, come back for more address space than deploy NATs.
or is this a bgp table growth concern reflected therein?
Cheers Terry
sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource managementpolicy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
Terry,
At 03:30 PM 20/02/2009, Terry Manderson wrote:
So, to play devil's advocate, this policy really provides an advantage to the large players who can justify a larger utilisation than the minimum allocation in a 6 month period (such that membership class is less of an issue)??
I might have thought that in the "run out phase" we might be more considerate of those smaller ISPs who might exist in slightly less developed countries, who cannot justify the /22 in 6 months but might still like to get 'even distribution'.
I'm not sure if I was clear - the change was to ensure that those needing only a /22 for a year *could* still receive those addresses, and therefore this should avoid disadvantaging smaller ISPs.
(I believe that - prior to this change - the concern about the potential disadvantage to smaller ISPs was probably the main reason why this proposal was not accepted at the Christchurch meeting, and why this change has been added to mitigate that situation.)
Does that help reduce your concerns about this?
Regards,
David
Hi David,
On 20/02/2009, at 4:25 PM, David Woodgate wrote:
I'm not sure if I was clear - the change was to ensure that those needing only a /22 for a year *could* still receive those addresses, and therefore this should avoid disadvantaging smaller ISPs.
Will a /22 be available in a year's time with larger organisations utilising a 6 month window?
(yes - unanswerable)
(I believe that - prior to this change - the concern about the potential disadvantage to smaller ISPs was probably the main reason why this proposal was not accepted at the Christchurch meeting, and why this change has been added to mitigate that situation.)
Sorry I don't see any substantial discussion or concern raised in the transcripts of APNIC26 to suggest that the smaller ISPs where considered in any form of analysis. (apart from your comment regarding the doubling of membership class)
Does that help reduce your concerns about this?
Not really - I don't feel comfortable that any strong level of scenario analysis has been done.
Can I moot a different approach?
Leave the window as it is (12 months) - but do 1/2 the allocation of the aggregate ( eg a /19 of a justified /18) initially, and when the member returns in 6 months and confirms the usage they then get the remaining /19 and then adjust their route advertisement to the aggregate. This way if the member doesn't return on the 6 month anniversary the unused portion can be allocated elsewhere. Further, we then know that the utilisation of first /19 meets the APNIC utilisation rate ( no large unused chunks) and in addition the RIR won't be hit by unexpected requests that strain the concept of equitable distribution.
Terry
Dear Ratha,
gratulation for your hard try to get success and I wish you have a good chance to get more experinces with operation system and also with the application server system.
Many Thank,
Chin Daro ----- Original Message ----- From: "Terry Manderson" terry@terrym.net To: "David Woodgate" David.Woodgate@telstra.net Cc: "APNIC Policy SIG" sig-policy@apnic.net Sent: Friday, February 20, 2009 2:48 PM Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-063: Reducing timeframe of IPv4 allocationsfrom twelve to six months
Hi David,
On 20/02/2009, at 4:25 PM, David Woodgate wrote:
I'm not sure if I was clear - the change was to ensure that those needing only a /22 for a year *could* still receive those addresses, and therefore this should avoid disadvantaging smaller ISPs.
Will a /22 be available in a year's time with larger organisations utilising a 6 month window?
(yes - unanswerable)
(I believe that - prior to this change - the concern about the potential disadvantage to smaller ISPs was probably the main reason why this proposal was not accepted at the Christchurch meeting, and why this change has been added to mitigate that situation.)
Sorry I don't see any substantial discussion or concern raised in the transcripts of APNIC26 to suggest that the smaller ISPs where considered in any form of analysis. (apart from your comment regarding the doubling of membership class)
Does that help reduce your concerns about this?
Not really - I don't feel comfortable that any strong level of scenario analysis has been done.
Can I moot a different approach?
Leave the window as it is (12 months) - but do 1/2 the allocation of the aggregate ( eg a /19 of a justified /18) initially, and when the member returns in 6 months and confirms the usage they then get the remaining /19 and then adjust their route advertisement to the aggregate. This way if the member doesn't return on the 6 month anniversary the unused portion can be allocated elsewhere. Further, we then know that the utilisation of first /19 meets the APNIC utilisation rate ( no large unused chunks) and in addition the RIR won't be hit by unexpected requests that strain the concept of equitable distribution.
Terry
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
Will a /22 be available in a year's time with larger organisations utilising a 6 month window?
(yes - unanswerable)
see prop-062, which is now passed
randy
Activity Summary
- 5089 days inactive
- 5089 days old
- sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
- 5 participants
- 8 comments