Re: [sig-policy] prop-080: Removal of IPv4 prefix exchange policy
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 at lists dot apnic dot net
> [mailto:sig-policy-bounces at lists dot apnic dot 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 at apnic dot 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
> * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management
> policy *
> _______________________________________________
> sig-policy mailing list
> sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net
> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
>