Re: [sig-policy] prop-080: Removal of IPv4 prefix exchange policy
If the returned address block is smaller than the minimum allocation
size, we can use them for small multihoming assignments.
Kind regards,
Guangliang
==========
myamanis at bb.softbank dot co dot jp wrote:
> Dear Guangliang,
>
> 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
>>>>>>