Re: [sig-policy] prop-080: Removal of IPv4 prefix exchange policy
I support this proposal to remove this policy.
...Skeeve
--
Skeeve Stevens, CEO/Technical Director
eintellego Pty Ltd - The Networking Specialists
skeeve at eintellego dot net / www.eintellego.net
Phone: 1300 753 383, Fax: (+612) 8572 9954
Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 / skype://skeeve
www.linkedin.com/in/skeeve ; facebook.com/eintellego
--
NOC, NOC, who's there?
> -----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 Guangliang Pan
> Sent: Wednesday, 3 February 2010 12:21 PM
> To: myamanis at bb.softbank dot co dot jp
> Cc: sig-policy at apnic dot net
> Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-080: Removal of IPv4 prefix exchange
> policy
>
> Dear Masato,
>
> Your guess is right :) There are only 10 cases used this policy so
> far. I have listed the years they happened and the sizes exchanged for
> all cases below.
>
> 2003 /21
> 2005 /19
> 2005 /18
> 2005 /22
> 2006 /14
> 2007 /21
> 2008 /22
> 2009 /21
> 2009 /21
> 2009 /21
>
> I hope the above information is of assistance.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Guangliang
> ==========
>
>
> myamanis at bb.softbank dot co dot jp wrote:
> > Dear Guangliang,
> >
> > 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
> >>
> * 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