Re: [sig-policy] prop-085: Eligibility for critical infrastructure assig
It strikes me that the CI block is well under-utilised and I think given that the most recent assignment was made last month, but nothing before that for about 3 months, demand seems low with a substantial amount of room to move!
Thinking about the demand for CI IPv4 the amount of address space allocated from 203.119.0.0/16 for the past two years (from delegated stats) is amazingly small:
apnic|AP|ipv4|203.119.77.0|256|20090909|assigned|A91DC5BE
apnic|SG|ipv4|203.119.78.0|256|20091006|assigned|A9198D20
apnic|KH|ipv4|203.119.79.0|256|20091120|assigned|A915B536
apnic|CN|ipv4|203.119.80.0|1024|20091207|assigned|A9299C10
apnic|NZ|ipv4|203.119.84.0|256|20100122|assigned|A914D522
apnic|AP|ipv4|203.119.85.0|256|20100305|assigned|A915B536
apnic|AU|ipv4|203.119.86.0|256|20100309|assigned|A91DC5BE
apnic|HK|ipv4|203.119.87.0|256|20100423|assigned|A91B4F31
apnic|AP|ipv4|203.119.88.0|512|20100311|assigned|A91B80BD
apnic|NP|ipv4|203.119.90.0|512|20100324|assigned|A9114FFB
apnic|AP|ipv4|203.119.92.0|512|20100723|assigned|A91DC5BE
The question in my mind relates to if 203.119/16 is 100% set aside for critical infrastructure assignments or not, given that section 11.3 doesn't actually say. If so then I struggle to see what real live problem prop-085 is going to solve. My belief is that the final /8 will have its assignment policy set and will be all consumed well before enough new critical infrastructure organisations can form and apply to use up the remaining space in 203.119/16 which would imply a restraint in the wrong direction.
Since it has taken near 7 years to use 17.5% (from Sanjaya's figure), it would take a quadrupling of demand to consume the remainder in another 7 years. It could happen - but I think I'll remain a sceptic on this one since demand from CI organisations is fairly flat.
So, I cannot see myself supporting this policy as written.
If 203.119/16 isn't set aside for just CI applications and other member applications can encroach on it, then I think you might want to consider that to be the low hanging fruit instead of heading toward the last /8 policy space.
Cheers
Terry
On 18/08/2010, at 4:56 PM, Sanjaya wrote:
> Hi Terence and all,
>
> 218.100.0.0/16 (IXP) is 12.5% utilized (26 assignments)
> 203.119.0.0/16 (critical infrastructure) is 17.5% utilized (23 assignments)
>
> Hope this helps. Let me know if you need more information.
>
>
> On 18/08/2010 4:33 PM, Terence Zhang YH wrote:
>> Hi Gaurab,
>>
>> Thanks for your comments.
>>
>> As far as I know, according to the Resource ranges allocated by APNIC:
>> http://www.apnic.net/publications/research-and-insights/ip-address-trends/apnic-resource-range
>>
>> 218.100.0.0/16 Used to make /24 assignments to Internet Exchange Points (IXPs)
>> 203.119.0.0/16 Used to make /24 assignments to Critical Infrastructure
>>
>> Of course, it will be helpful if some one from the secretariat can verify that and
>> shed some light on how many assignments have been make from that block
>> and the utilisation rate, etc.
>>
>>> In case the allocation rate on the already reserved blocks are low, I'd
>>> like to suggest that the policy add a condition that those blocks be
>>> used before new allocations are made from the final /8.
>>
>> I am not quite sure what the above mean. If there are still addresses
>> available for distribution from this block, it's pretty straight forward
>> to make assignments from this block as long as assignments are permitted
>> in the policy. I am not sure if that is what you mean, I am happy to add
>> that condition if neccessary.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Terence Zhang
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 04:54:04 +0100
>>> From: Gaurab Raj Upadhaya<gaurab at lahai dot com>
>>> Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-085: Eligibility for critical
>>> infrastructure assignments from the final /8
>>> To: sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net
>>> Message-ID:<4C6A07DC.7040204 at lahai dot com>
>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15
>>>
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>
>>> hi,
>>>
>>> - From the secretariat, I'd like to know which are the ranges currently
>>> used for critical infrastructure allocation and what is the allocation %
>>> for those blocks. I can only find the IXP allocation block
>>> (218.100.0.0/16.) but not the DNS related block, which possibly is
>>> 203.119.0.0/16)
>>>
>>> In case the allocation rate on the already reserved blocks are low, I'd
>>> like to suggest that the policy add a condition that those blocks be
>>> used before new allocations are made from the final /8.
>>>
>>> This is important, because lots of routing policies are based on giving
>>> special dispensation to critical infrastructure blocks.
>>>
>>> In General, I support this policy. It covers some very limited corner
>>> cases, but nevertheless important corner cases to do with critical
>>> infrastructure. From my reading of the proposal, it also gives
>>> continuity to the current Critical Infrastructure policy. Though,
>>> practically, I don't see this policy being used for allocation for a
>>> long time in future, but the data I ask above may help us judge that.
>>>
>>> - -gaurab
>>>
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>> Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin)
>>> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
>>>
>>> iEYEARECAAYFAkxqB9wACgkQSo7fU26F3X2fIwCfaxn0fhdOv8kh+PsJitvSRMbW
>>> xCAAnRFpGQq6BBhKOZV/xnDwAIPCc+cO
>>> =/LT9
>>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>
>> * 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