Keyboard Shortcuts
Thread View
j: Next unread messagek: Previous unread messagej a: Jump to all threadsj l: Jump to MailingList overview
[ posted by co-chair as chair is a co-author ]
Dear SIG members
The proposed policy 'Proposal to create IPv4 shared use address space among LIRs' has been sent to the Policy SIG for review. It will be presented during the Policy SIG sessions at APNIC 25 in Taipei, Taiwan, 25-29 February 2008.
The proposal's history can be found at:
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-058-v001.html
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:
- Ask the proposer questions if anything in the proposal is unclear - Point out advantages and disadvantages you see in the proposal - State whether you support or oppose the proposal
Mailing list discussions will be taken into account when the proposal is discussed at the upcoming APNIC meeting. So please make sure you have your say.
APNIC Policy SIG Chairs Toshiyuki Hosaka Randy Bush Jian Zhang
________________________________________________________________________
prop-058-v001: Proposal to create IPv4 shared use address space among LIRs ________________________________________________________________________
Author: Shirou Niinobe nin@syce.net
Co-authors: Takeshi TOMOCHIKA Jiro YAMAGUCHI Dai NISHINO Hiroyuki ASHIDA Akira NAKAGAWA Toshiyuki HOSAKA
Version: 1
Date: 28 January 2008
1. Introduction ----------------
This proposal is to create IPv4 shared use address space among LIRs in AP region, for the effective use of the IPv4 address space.
2. Summary of current problem ------------------------------
LIRs providing firewall and IP connectivity services behind NATs using RFC 1918 address space face potential address space collisions between end user networks that are using the same RFC 1918 address ranges.
This is preventing LIRs and their end users from benefitting from the security and efficient IPv4 address use that firewalls and NATs can provide.
Instead, some LIRs are applying (and receiving) global IPv4 address allocations to providing firewall and IP connectivity services.
Furthermore, if LIRs assign only IPv6 addresses to end users, they cannot communicate with non-IPv6 ready site.
By having IPv4 shared use address space as an alternative to RFC 1918 address ranges, LIRs would not need to request global IPv4 allocations to achieve their aims. Therefore LIRs can continue to provide IP connectivity after IPv4 free pool exhaustion.
3. Situation in other RIRs ----------------------------
No RIR currently has address space for this purpose.
On 3 August 2007, the following Internet Draft was submitted to the IETF:
- Redesignation of 240/4 from "Future Use" to "Limited Use for Large Private Internets" http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-wilson-class-e-01.txt
4. Details of the proposal ----------------------------
4.1. It is proposed that:
- APNIC create IPv4 shared use address space for use by LIRs in the AP region
- APNIC reserve one /8 for this purpose
4.2. Conditions for use of this shared use address space are:
- All LIRs in the AP region can use the address space
- LIRs can choose a range within the shared space for their use without needing to apply to APNIC or NIRs
- LIRs do not need to register use of their chosen shared use range
- Global/regional address uniqueness is not guaranteed
- End-users cannot use this proposed address space and should continue to use the existing RFC 1918 address ranges.
- LIRs are free to assign this shared use addresses to their customers.
- Use of shared use address space will not be included when calculating APNIC fees
5. Advantages and disadvantages of the proposal -------------------------------------------------
Advantages:
- It promotes effective use of global IPv4 address space, as the largest LIRs will use this proposed address space rather than global addresses
- By using this shared use address space, LIRs can continue to provide IPv4 connectivity even after the IPv4 address exhaustion
- LIRs can provide IPv4 connectivity by dual-stacking shared use addresses with IPv6 addresses. This is important as we currently do not have high-throughput IPv6-IPv4 translators for commercial use
Disadvantages:
- Concerns may be raised that global IPv4 addresses that can be allocated to LIRs diminishes by one /8 (however, in the long run, this proposal will save more address than that space)
6. Effect on APNIC members ----------------------------
APNIC members will have the option of both IPv4 global address space and shared use address space
7. Effect on NIRs -------------------
NIRs are expected to adopt the same policy at their discretion.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
hi,
I see no real reason or benefit behind this proposal. What problems does this really solve that's not addressed by RFC1918 space ? Am i the only one here who thinks that this is the very discredited ULA concept coming up again ? few questions..
If global uniqueness is not an objective, then how does this differ from current RFC 1918 use ?
If you designate a /8 for this purpose - what limits its usage within APNIC region only ? If it's going to be a globally scoped address, then why is it at APNIC and not at IETF / IANA or where-ever it's supposed to be ?
I really don't see how this policy can be made to work operationally and thus don't see the need of it.
Also, i don't really see any relationship between the proposed 240/4 use and this proposal. the professed problems space may overlap but the proposed solution spaced doesn't.
thanks ~ -gaurab
Randy Bush wrote: | [ posted by co-chair as chair is a co-author ] | | Dear SIG members | | The proposed policy 'Proposal to create IPv4 shared use address space | among LIRs' has been sent to the Policy SIG for review. It will be | presented during the Policy SIG sessions at APNIC 25 in Taipei, Taiwan, | 25-29 February 2008. | | The proposal's history can be found at: | | http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-058-v001.html | | 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: | | - Ask the proposer questions if anything in the proposal is | unclear | - Point out advantages and disadvantages you see in the proposal | - State whether you support or oppose the proposal | | Mailing list discussions will be taken into account when the proposal | is discussed at the upcoming APNIC meeting. So please make sure you have | your say. | | APNIC Policy SIG Chairs | Toshiyuki Hosaka | Randy Bush | Jian Zhang | | ________________________________________________________________________ | | prop-058-v001: Proposal to create IPv4 shared use address space | among LIRs | ________________________________________________________________________ | | | Author: Shirou Niinobe nin@syce.net | | Co-authors: Takeshi TOMOCHIKA | Jiro YAMAGUCHI | Dai NISHINO | Hiroyuki ASHIDA | Akira NAKAGAWA | Toshiyuki HOSAKA | | Version: 1 | | Date: 28 January 2008 | | | 1. Introduction | ---------------- | | This proposal is to create IPv4 shared use address space among LIRs | in AP region, for the effective use of the IPv4 address space. | | | 2. Summary of current problem | ------------------------------ | | LIRs providing firewall and IP connectivity services behind NATs using | RFC 1918 address space face potential address space collisions between | end user networks that are using the same RFC 1918 address ranges. | | This is preventing LIRs and their end users from benefitting from the | security and efficient IPv4 address use that firewalls and NATs can | provide. | | Instead, some LIRs are applying (and receiving) global IPv4 address | allocations to providing firewall and IP connectivity services. | | Furthermore, if LIRs assign only IPv6 addresses to end users, they | cannot communicate with non-IPv6 ready site. | | By having IPv4 shared use address space as an alternative to RFC 1918 | address ranges, LIRs would not need to request global IPv4 allocations | to achieve their aims. Therefore LIRs can continue to provide IP | connectivity after IPv4 free pool exhaustion. | | | 3. Situation in other RIRs | ---------------------------- | | No RIR currently has address space for this purpose. | | On 3 August 2007, the following Internet Draft was submitted to the | IETF: | | - Redesignation of 240/4 from "Future Use" to "Limited Use for | Large Private Internets" | http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-wilson-class-e-01.txt | | | 4. Details of the proposal | ---------------------------- | | 4.1. It is proposed that: | | - APNIC create IPv4 shared use address space for use by LIRs in | the AP region | | - APNIC reserve one /8 for this purpose | | | 4.2. Conditions for use of this shared use address space are: | | - All LIRs in the AP region can use the address space | | - LIRs can choose a range within the shared space for their use | without needing to apply to APNIC or NIRs | | - LIRs do not need to register use of their chosen shared use | range | | - Global/regional address uniqueness is not guaranteed | | - End-users cannot use this proposed address space and should | continue to use the existing RFC 1918 address ranges. | | - LIRs are free to assign this shared use addresses to their | customers. | | - Use of shared use address space will not be included when | calculating APNIC fees | | | 5. Advantages and disadvantages of the proposal | ------------------------------------------------- | | Advantages: | | - It promotes effective use of global IPv4 address space, as the | largest LIRs will use this proposed address space rather than | global addresses | | - By using this shared use address space, LIRs can continue to | provide IPv4 connectivity even after the IPv4 address exhaustion | | - LIRs can provide IPv4 connectivity by dual-stacking shared use | addresses with IPv6 addresses. This is important as we currently | do not have high-throughput IPv6-IPv4 translators for commercial | use | | | Disadvantages: | | - Concerns may be raised that global IPv4 addresses that can be | allocated to LIRs diminishes by one /8 (however, in the long run, | this proposal will save more address than that space) | | | 6. Effect on APNIC members | ---------------------------- | | APNIC members will have the option of both IPv4 global address space | and shared use address space | | 7. Effect on NIRs | ------------------- | | NIRs are expected to adopt the same policy at their discretion. | * 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
- Summary of current problem
LIRs providing firewall and IP connectivity services behind NATs using RFC 1918 address space face potential address space collisions between end user networks that are using the same RFC 1918 address ranges.
This is stated as the problem. How does a shared use address pool solve this problem??
RFC1918 collides, because everyone can use it.
The authors' proposed /8 will also collide, because everyone will then use it.
So this proposal does not solve the above problem.
This is preventing LIRs and their end users from benefitting from the security and efficient IPv4 address use that firewalls and NATs can provide.
NATs do not provide security.
Instead, some LIRs are applying (and receiving) global IPv4 address allocations to providing firewall and IP connectivity services.
Which APNIC policy dictates that LIRs *must* use global IPv4 addresses behind NATs? There isn't one I'm aware of, so this is an LIR created problem. Why do we need to fix APNIC policies because LIRs are "not using IPv4 addresses properly"?
Furthermore, if LIRs assign only IPv6 addresses to end users, they cannot communicate with non-IPv6 ready site.
Are there any IPv6 only sites now? Their folly for discarding IPv4, real or NAT'ed. Not an APNIC policy problem.
By having IPv4 shared use address space as an alternative to RFC 1918 address ranges, LIRs would not need to request global IPv4 allocations to achieve their aims. Therefore LIRs can continue to provide IP connectivity after IPv4 free pool exhaustion.
This proposal simply desires to extend RFC1918 address space. The previous effort to do this a few years back was thrown out. Different authors, same proposal, wasting APNIC Policy meeting time yet again.
On 3 August 2007, the following Internet Draft was submitted to the IETF:
- Redesignation of 240/4 from "Future Use" to "Limited Use for Large Private Internets" http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-wilson-class-e-01.txt
What has this got to do with the proposal? Nothing. And it is pretty much accepted that use of the 240/4 address block as an RFC1918 extension is a non-starter due to the massive deployed infrastructure that simply cannot handle it.
4.2. Conditions for use of this shared use address space are:
- All LIRs in the AP region can use the address space - LIRs can choose a range within the shared space for their use without needing to apply to APNIC or NIRs - LIRs do not need to register use of their chosen shared use range - Global/regional address uniqueness is not guaranteed - End-users cannot use this proposed address space and should continue to use the existing RFC 1918 address ranges. - LIRs are free to assign this shared use addresses to their customers. - Use of shared use address space will not be included when calculating APNIC fees
Yes, all like RFC1918 space. Wouldn't it have been more polite to ask Tony Hain to resubmit his previous proposal?
- Advantages and disadvantages of the proposal
Advantages:
- It promotes effective use of global IPv4 address space, as the largest LIRs will use this proposed address space rather than global addresses
It will still have to be NATed though, so I don't see how this can be a claimed advantage.
- By using this shared use address space, LIRs can continue to provide IPv4 connectivity even after the IPv4 address exhaustion
They can also do so with routable address space.
- LIRs can provide IPv4 connectivity by dual-stacking shared use addresses with IPv6 addresses. This is important as we currently do not have high-throughput IPv6-IPv4 translators for commercial use
Has anyone got IPv6 traffic that and IPv6 to IPv4 translator can't handle? Extending RFC1918 address space doesn't solve the IPv6 transition problem.
This proposal needs to sort out what problem it is trying to solve. In this state, it does little more than waste conference time.
philip --
On 28/01/2008, at 11:43 PM, Philip Smith wrote:
Has anyone got IPv6 traffic that and IPv6 to IPv4 translator can't handle? Extending RFC1918 address space doesn't solve the IPv6 transition problem.
This proposal needs to sort out what problem it is trying to solve. In this state, it does little more than waste conference time.
I completely agree.
Expanding RFC1918 space simply serves to further increase reliance on our depleting stocks of IPv4 space.
If LIRs require more RFC1918 space so as to avoid overlapping address space they should be using globally unique IPv4 address space.
If global uniqueness is such a desirable trait to have then I hope those LIRs are doing their best to help sort out this IPv6 mess so that we retain that global uniqueness in the future.
Additional reuse of IPv4 address space by increasing RFC1918 space serves only to delay the point at which decision makers realise the situation is critical - resulting in a far smaller timeframe in which to transition to IPv6.
Cheers, Jonny.
Activity Summary
- 5716 days inactive
- 5716 days old
- sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
- 4 participants
- 3 comments