[sig-policy] prop-094: Adding alternative criteria to renumbering requir
Hash: SHA1
Dear SIG members,
The proposal, 'Adding alternative criteria to renumbering requirement
in final /8 policy', after IANA exhaustion has been sent to the Policy
SIG for review. It will be presented at the Policy SIG at APNIC 31 in
Hong Kong SAR, China, 21-25 February 2011.
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
Gaurab, Ching-Heng, and Terence
________________________________________________________________________
prop-094-v001: Adding alternative criteria to renumbering requirement in
final /8 policy
________________________________________________________________________
Authors: Izumi Okutani
Terence Zhang
Version: 1
Date: 24 January 2011
1. Introduction
- ----------------
This is a proposal to add an alternative criteria to the requirement for
organizations receiving their initial allocation from APNIC to renumber
out of their previously deployed space when they are allocated
addresses under the final /8 policy [1].
2. Summary of the current problem
- ----------------------------------
Under the current final /8 policy, allocations made to LIRs must meet
the criteria specified under one of the two following sections of the
"Policies for IPv4 address space management in the Asia Pacific
region":
- Section 9.3, Criteria for initial allocation
- Section 9.4, Criteria for subsequent allocations
One of the criteria for initial allocations is that the LIR:
"commit to renumber from previously deployed space into the new
address space within one year."
Under current IPv4 allocation policy, that is, before the final /8
policy is activated, LIRs can receive any sized allocation they are
able to justify. In the case of initial allocations, for the sake of
conservation and aggregation, policy requires that any LIR that has
previously used non-portable IPv4 addresses from their upstream
provider must agree to renumber out of those addresses and into their
new portable APNIC allocation within one year. This allowed the LIR
to maintain the size of its previous non-portable address block plus
add its next 12 months worth of addressing needs to its new portable
allocation from APNIC.
However, when we have reached the final /8, the size of allocation will
be restricted to a single /22. As a result, APNIC will no longer be able
to consider the loss of address space caused by renumbering, when
determining the size of an LIR's initial allocation.
As a result, the renumbering requirement for initial allocations will in
practice result in reclamation of a new LIR's address holding, without
the ability to sufficiently compensate the LIR with a corresponding
allocation size.
In such cases, it would be unreasonable to expect these organizations to
number out of a upstream block into a single /22 from APNIC.
3. Situation in other RIRs
- ---------------------------
RIPE:
The "Allocations for the last /8" policy does not define additional
requirements for the renumbering of address space. See Section 5.6,
"Use of last /8 for PA Allocations," in "IPv4 Address Allocation and
Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region":
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-509.html
There is no similar policy or proposal in the AfriNIC, ARIN or LACNIC
regions.
4. Details
- -----------
It is proposed that the final /8 policy be expanded to give
organizations applying for IPv4 addresses under the initial allocation
criteria (section 9.3 of the current policy document) the ability to
choose from:
- The existing criteria:
Commit to renumber from previously deployed space into the
new address space within one year, OR
- A new alternative criteria:
Demonstrate that the usage rate of previous IPv4 address
space holding from their upstream provider(s) reached 80%
5. Pros/Cons
- -------------
Advantages:
- It will allow new LIRs to receive a /22 under the final /8 policy
without restricting its total current address holdings.
Disadvantages:
- Some people might suggest that increased fraudulent applications
might result from this proposed policy. However, adding or
removing the renumbering requirement does NOT increase or
decrease the possibility of fraud. Fraud is already a potential
risk in address requests, and it is assumed that APNIC would
detect and respond to any fraud related to this proposed policy
in a proper manner.
6. Effect on APNIC
- -------------------
It will allow APNIC members to receive a /22 allocation under the final
/8 policy from APNIC without renumbering its current address holdings.
8. Effect on NIRs
- ------------------
Just as the final /8 policy applies to NIRs, this amendment to the final
/8 policy would apply to NIRs.
9. References
- -------------
[1] Section 9.10.1, "Allocations to LIRs," in "Policies for IPv4 address
space management in the Asia Pacific region"
http://www.apnic.net/policy/add-manage-policy
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.16 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iEYEARECAAYFAk0927UACgkQSo7fU26F3X1obQCgiOIui9d3Q9XqbaGpby4+ehD9
SZkAoKRleS9tdg/+4QYHGURZnfX+6+4o
=lMS4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----