Orbit

(sorry for the previous email that was sent mistakenly before completing)

Dear Nick,

Thank you very much for your comment and support.

In priniciple I support this proposal, my concerns are to do with the possible effect on APNIC's pool of addresses as exhaustion approaches.

That is one of the key issues fo this proposal so I would like to hear others' opinion as well.

thanks and best regards, toshi

Nick Hannaford wrote (2007/10/09 9:00):

Dear Toshiyuki,

Thanks for putting this informal proposal together for comment.

I understand what you are trying to achieve and support the concept as the proposed RFC for 240/4 has a very limited real world application.

APNIC will supply the two /8s from its pool. Does this disadvantage the AP region (the fastest growing region for IP consumption) for what will effectively become a defacto standard across the world?

If this proposal was to get up it would be undoubtly be adopted across the globe. Currently there is use of 7/8 and 14/8 in private domains because the RFC1918 space is limited.

Conversely by adopting this proposal, APNIC are showing leadership in solving this very real issue.

In priniciple I support this proposal, my concerns are to do with the possible effect on APNIC's pool of addresses as exhaustion approaches.

Kind regards Nick Hannaford

-----Original Message----- From: sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net [mailto:sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net] On Behalf Of Toshiyuki Hosaka Sent: Saturday, 6 October 2007 12:18 AM To: sig-policy@apnic.net Subject: [sig-policy] Soliciting comments - IPv4 shared use address space

[chair hat off]

Dear colleagues,

I have translated the policy proposal idea (this is NOT a formal policy proposal to APNIC at this stage) as below, in order to seek your comments and feedback on this.

This proposal was submitted to JPNIC open policy meeting this year, and I planned to introduce this idea at the last APNIC meeting but I couldn't because we have no time for informational presentations.

This proposal is to designate two (2) /8s global address as "shared use" among APNIC LIRs for their internal use. If you are interested in, please read through and send your comments which the authors would highly appreciate.

Thanks and best regards, toshi

Toshiyuki Hosaka JPNIC

Title of proposal : 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 : 7 August 2007

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.

1. Summary of current problem

There is a case that a LIR gave up providing firewall or IP connectivity service behind NAT using RFC1918 address space for the security and the effecitive use of IPv4 addresses, because of the potential (possible) address space collision with the same RFC1918 addresses in an end-user's networks.

Some LIRs apply (and receive) global IPv4 address allocation for the purpose of providing such a service. If we have this proposed shared address they do not have to apply global IPv4 addresses in such a case, and we can achieve effecitive use of IPv4 address.

1. Situation in other RIRs

There is no address space for this purpose (other than RFC1918 space). However the Internet Draft (Redesignation of 240/4 from "Future Use" to "Limited Use for Large Private Internets" draft-wilson-class-e-00.txt has been submitted on August 3, 2007.

1. Details of the proposal

1. Create IPv4 shared use address space among LIRs in AP region.

2. The amount of the address space for this purpose is two (2) /8s.

3. LIRs in AP region can use its address space without any registration or application procedure to APNIC/NIRs, therefore global/regional address uniqueness is not guaranteed.

4. End-users cannot use this proposed address space, and should use existing RFC1918 address. Though LIRs can assign this proposed address to its customers.

1. Advantages and disadvantages of the proposal

[Advantages]:

• Effective use of global IPv4 address space will be promoted, as the largest LIRs will use this proposed address space rather than global addresses.

• "Unnecessary (replaceable addresses to this proposed space)" IPv4 global address allocation/second opinion request can be diminished, therefore APNIC/NIR's wordload will be reduced.

• IP connectivity service behind firewall or NAT can be provided easily by using this proposed address.

• No need to apply global IPv4 addresses to APNIC/NIR.

• LIRs can save APNIC/NIR membership fee (calculated based on the amount of address space allocated).

• End-users can connect to the internet without any apllication of the global IPv4 addresses.

• End-users can buy a service with different level of security provided using the global IPv4 address network.

• LIRs still can provide IPv4 connectivity by using this proposed address space, even after the IPv4 address exhaustion.

• Currently we do not have high-throughput IPv6-IPv4 translater for commercial use, and even if it is not available until the IPv4 address exhaustion LIRs still can provide IPv4 connectivity by dual- stucking with this proposed address space.

• For those who cannot replace their equipment to IPv6-ready, especially in the LDC in Asia region, can provide IP connectivity by using this proposed address space.

[Disadvantages]:

• Global IPv4 addresses to be allocated to LIRs diminishes by Two (2) /8s.

• LIRs needs to configure firewalls or NATs to use this proposed address space. Therefore global IPv4 addresses for these equipments are still needed for their external connectivity.

1. Effect on APNIC members

APNIC members will be able to use this proposed address space in accordance with their necessity.

1. 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

Dear Leo,

Thank you for your question.

Leo Vegoda wrote (2007/10/16 6:24):

If this proposal was formally introduced, would it be introduced as a regional or global policy proposal?

This is a regional policy proposal.

regards, toshi --- Toshiyuki Hosaka