Re: [sig-policy] prop-093: Reducing the minimum delegation size for the
Owen
On Jan 24, 2011, at 12:05 PM, Gaurab Raj Upadhaya wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Dear SIG members,
>
> The proposal, 'Reducing the minimum delegation size for the final /8
> policy', 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-093-v001: Reducing the minimum delegation size for the final /8
> policy
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
>
> Author: Randy Bush
> <randy at psg dot com>
>
> Philip Smith
> <pfs at cisco dot com>
>
> Version: 1
>
> Date: 24 January 2011
>
>
>
> 1. Introduction
> - ----------------
>
> This is a proposal to change the minimum size of IPv4 delegations to a
> /24 when the final /8 policy [1] is activated.
>
>
> 2. Summary of current problem
> - ------------------------------
>
> The current final /8 allocation policy requires networks to meet the
> requirements for the minimum allocation size currently in place:
> currently a /22. To justify a /22 allocation, a network must
> demonstrate, amongst other things, an immediate need for a /24 and a
> detailed plan for use of a /23 within a year. However, this could
> prevent small networks, that may be multihomed, operating critical
> Internet infrastructure, or connecting to IXPs, or running IPv6
> transition tools such as NAT64, from justifying a need for IPv4
> addresses under the final /8 policy.
>
>
> 3. Situation in other RIRs
> - ---------------------------
>
> There is no similar policy or proposal in other regions.
>
>
> 4. Details of the proposal
> - ---------------------------
>
> It is proposed that when APNIC enters the phase of the final /8
> policy[1]:
>
> 4.1 The minimum delegation size be set to a /24.
>
>
> 4.2 The maximum delegation size any one organisation can receive from
> the final /8 be set to a /22.
>
> Note: This means that an organisation which has received a single
> /24 under this proposal is entitled to request and receive
> additional IPv4 address(es) from APNIC until it has received
> up to a total of a /22.
>
>
> 4.3 Criteria for delegations under the final /8 policy will accordingly
> be expanded to include the following criteria:
>
> - Small multihoming assignments
> - Internet Exchange Points
> - Critical infrastructure
>
>
> 5. Advantages and disadvantages of the proposal
> - ------------------------------------------------
>
> 5.1 Advantages
>
> - This proposal allows a greater range of networks to access the
> resources in the final /8.
>
> - This proposal extends the maximum possible total number of
> networks that can benefit from the final /8 pool from around
> 16,000 to around 65,000 networks, providing small amounts of
> IPv4 to be available for networks, end site, etc., making the
> transition to IPv6 for many years to come.
>
>
> 5.2 Disadvantages
>
> - No disadvantages are foreseen.
>
>
> 6. Effect on APNIC members
> - ---------------------------
>
> It reduces the minimum size of the delegated address block available
> to APNIC members during the final /8 phase.
>
> 7. Effect on NIRs
> - ------------------
>
> This will affect NIR members in the same way as APNIC members.
>
> 8. References
> - --------------
>
> [1] Section 9.10 "Distribution of the final /8 worth of space in the
> unallocated APNIC IPv4 address pool" of "Policies for IPv4 address
> space management in the Asia Pacific region"
> http://www.apnic.net/policy/add-manage-policy#9.10
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.16 (Darwin)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAk0924QACgkQSo7fU26F3X1V3wCdHfqJbAL9ZSAO1igu05Lwy+JH
> GeMAn0kn6+QOZoJcIOwGE8Sh0nrPHA7F
> =ir6b
> -----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