Re: [sig-policy] prop-080: Removal of IPv4 prefix exchange policy
I understand generic procedure by your reply.
However, if size of returned address is smaller than the minimum allocation size,
is it still be re-allocated?
Rgs,
Masato YAMANISHI
Softbank BB Corp.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Guangliang Pan [mailto:gpan at apnic dot net]
> Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 10:18 AM
> To: 山西 正人(ネットワーク本部)
> Cc: sig-policy at apnic dot net
> Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-080: Removal of IPv4 prefix
> exchange policy
>
> Dear Masato,
>
> The prefix exchange policy doesn't specify a deadline for renumbering
> out of and returning the old noncongiguous prefixes. In
> practice, APNIC
> Hostmasters ask organizations to renumber and return their
> old prefixes
> within 3 months. However, renumbering can take up to 12 months in some
> cases.
>
> After the old prefixes have been returned to APNIC, we put into a
> quarantine pool for at least 12 months before we can reused them.
>
> This means that at worst, resources might not be available for
> reallocation for 2 years after an organization first takes
> advantage of
> the exchange policy. If this policy remains active, it is
> possible that
> returned prefixes will not be available for reallocation until the
> IANA IPv4 pool exhaustion.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Guangliang
> ==========
>
>
> myamanis at bb.softbank dot co dot jp wrote:
> > Dear Guangliang,
> >
> > Actually, it's more than I expected (in particular, 3 times
> in last year)
> >
> > BTW, are we re-utilizing prefixes which have been returned
> > by this current policy for new allocation or assignment?
> >
> > If answer is "no", it means that current policy has bad side effect
> > which may accelerate the exhaustion. It may be another
> advantage of your proposal.
> >
> > Rgs,
> > Masato YAMANISHI
> > Softbank BB Corp.
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Guangliang Pan [mailto:gpan at apnic dot net]
> >> Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2010 10:21 AM
> >> To: 山西 正人(ネットワーク本部)
> >> 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
> >>>>
>