Re: [sig-policy] sig-policy Digest, Vol 87, Issue 47
Regards
Amit
----- Original Message -----
From: Gajendra Upadhyay (COR)
Sent: Friday, August 26, 2011 04:17 PM
To: Amit Tank (NLD); sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net <sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net>
Cc: Uday Joshi (NLD); VIJEET KAMBLI (ILD)
Subject: RE: sig-policy Digest, Vol 87, Issue 47
Amit,
Tks. Is this now visible on the forum for others to comment?
Tks and Rgds
-----Original Message-----
From: Amit Tank (NLD)
Sent: Friday, August 26, 2011 9:01 AM
To: sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net
Cc: Uday Joshi (NLD); VIJEET KAMBLI (ILD); Gajendra Upadhyay (COR)
Subject: RE: sig-policy Digest, Vol 87, Issue 47
We welcome and support the prop-100 National IP Address Plan - Allocation of country-wide IP address blocks .
Need to have clarity on:
1. Criteria and strategy of reservation of Large IP blocks for ISP's , especially the ones which have large growth plans.
2. Availability of contiguous blocks , which would help in summarization.
Regards
Amit
Planning and Projects
+91 9819818736
-----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 sig-policy-request at lists dot apnic dot net
Sent: Friday, August 26, 2011 5:04 AM
To: sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net
Subject: sig-policy Digest, Vol 87, Issue 47
Send sig-policy mailing list submissions to
sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
sig-policy-request at lists dot apnic dot net
You can reach the person managing the list at
sig-policy-owner at lists dot apnic dot net
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of sig-policy digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: prop-098 Optimizing IPv6 allocation
strategies(simplified) (Terence Zhang YH)
2. Re: FW: prop-100 National IP Address Plan - Allocation of
country-wide IP address blocks (Milind.Deshpande at relianceada dot com)
3. Re: prop-098 Optimizing IPv6 allocation
strategies(simplified) (Owen DeLong)
4. Re: prop-098 Optimizing IPv6 allocation
strategies(simplified) (Leo Vegoda)
5. Re: Article of possible interest to the community (John Curran)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2011 14:56:22 +0800
From: "Terence Zhang YH" <zhangyinghao at cnnic dot cn>
Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-098 Optimizing IPv6 allocation
strategies(simplified)
To: "Owen DeLong" <owen at delong dot com>
Cc: sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net
Message-ID: <514255412.09015 at cnnic dot cn>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
(NO link to co-chair's opinion)
Hi Owen,
We have intensive interest in prop-098, generally speaking, we support the idea of more generous IPv6 allocations policy, and nibble boundary allocation etc.
We have a few questions about the proposal:
1. About Provider Allocation Unit:
It is defined as the smallest reassignment unit used by the provider.
Q1: Is the size of the PAU defined by the provider? Do they need to justify the size?
2. About End site:
It is defined as a single structure or service delivery address
Q2: When it comes to mobile IP services, Is the 'end site' applied to a PDA or Cell phone devices, a personal area network (PAN), an Access Point, or a POP?
3. Section 4.2: ......5 years of projected customer
utilization based on assigning each customer end-site one
provider allocation unit without exceeding a 75% utilization.
Q3: Does this assume each customer end-site will be allocated one same size PAU?
4. Section 5.1 subsequent allocation criteria:
- 75% or more utilization of their total address space, OR
- One or more facilities which have reached a 90% utilization......
there are no available blocks of sufficient size in the providers current
allocation(s) to expand those facilities.
Q4: How to justify 'there are no available blocks of sufficient size', specifically
when the LIR has sparsely assigned 160 * /40 from a /32, now one of the /40 site becomes full,
and no more contiguous /40 left, will this be considered meet the criteria.
5. Section 2.4. The HD ratio ......Using nibble-boundaries and rounding up actually yields similar
results with simpler math.
Q5: How to understand 'nibble-boundaries round up' will have the similiar results with HD?
With a consistent 75% usage and unpredictable 1-8 times rounding up, my humble feeling is the utilization is unpredictable, but the HD-ratio requirement is predictable.
Prefix HD require Utlization:
----------------------------
/32 36.9%
/28 31.2%
/24 26.4%
/20 22.4%
In my premature estimation, the 75% usage plus round up maybe more relax than HD requirement in small network, but it maybe more restricted than HD in large network.
Q6: Does this proposal remove HD-ratio criteria completely?
Regards
Terence
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2011 20:45:20 +0530
From: Milind.Deshpande at relianceada dot com
Subject: Re: [sig-policy] FW: prop-100 National IP Address Plan -
Allocation of country-wide IP address blocks
To: sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net
Cc: Rajesh.Shinde at relianceada dot com, A.Mathur at relianceada dot com
Message-ID:
<OFD7E868B6.910219F6-ON652578F7.0051E317-652578F7.0053CDD4@LocalDomain>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
The prop-100 National IP Address Plan - Allocation of country-wide IP address blocks is welcomed with respect to following's,
1. Strategy of reserving large IP pool for ISP's & Organization within growing country on the basis of RIR objectives.
2. Proposal needs more clarity in terms of conservation & contiguity of IP address block like the primary goals of Aggregation (routability) so as to assist in maintenance of Internet routing tables at a manageable size to ensure continued operational stability of the Internet.
3. The policy & guidelines for establishing NIR as NGO should be addressed in the proposal or should be kept same as APNIC.
We accept the proposal with above corrections.
Regards / Milind.
Network Planning & Engg. - Data
Phone : 22-303 83921
RIM : 9322233904
Enjoy the widest reach of 3G services across India only On Reliance www.rcom.co.in/3G
The information contained in this electronic message (email) and any attachments to this email are intended for the exclusive use of the addressee(s) and access to this email by any one else is unauthorised. The email may contain proprietary, confidential or privileged information or information relating to Reliance Group. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender by telephone, fax, or return email and delete this communication and any attachments thereto, immediately from your computer. Any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication and the attachments thereto (in whole or part), in any manner, is strictly prohibited and actionable at law. The recipient acknowledges that emails are susceptible to alteration and their integrity can not be guaranteed and that Company does not guarantee that any e-mail is virus-free and accept no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this email.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-policy/attachments/20110825/feb789d4/attachment.html
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2011 10:10:40 -0700
From: Owen DeLong <owen at delong dot com>
Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-098 Optimizing IPv6 allocation
strategies(simplified)
To: Terence Zhang YH <zhangyinghao at cnnic dot cn>
Cc: "<sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net>" <sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net>
Message-ID: <CD7AE961-9903-45FD-8983-6072B62E23F0 at delong dot com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Sent from my iPad
On Aug 24, 2011, at 23:56, "Terence Zhang YH" <zhangyinghao at cnnic dot cn> wrote:
> (NO link to co-chair's opinion)
>
> Hi Owen,
>
> We have intensive interest in prop-098, generally speaking, we support
> the idea of more generous IPv6 allocations policy, and nibble boundary allocation etc.
>
> We have a few questions about the proposal:
>
> 1. About Provider Allocation Unit:
> It is defined as the smallest reassignment unit used by the provider.
>
> Q1: Is the size of the PAU defined by the provider? Do they need to justify the size?
>
Yes. By choosing the smallest assignment unit they give to a customer, they set the size of their PAU. So, if they give a /48 to all customers, then, their PAU is /48. If they give /60s to some customers, then their PAU is /60, etc.
Any PAU up to /48 may be chosen by the provider without additional justification. (Or at least that is my intent in writing the policy).
> 2. About End site:
> It is defined as a single structure or service delivery address
>
> Q2: When it comes to mobile IP services, Is the 'end site' applied to
> a PDA or Cell phone devices, a personal area network (PAN), an Access
> Point, or a POP?
>
I believe end-site in that case would apply to the device where the carrier's responsibility ends, for example, the cell phone, PDA, or USB-modem. All devices served by a single mobile hot-spot, for example, would be considered a single end-site.
I confess I didn't thoroughly think through mobile when writing the policy, but, I believe that the above represents the most logical application of the policy as written to mobile and that would certainly be the intent if I were to write clarifying language to address the question.
> 3. Section 4.2: ......5 years of projected customer
> utilization based on assigning each customer end-site one
> provider allocation unit without exceeding a 75% utilization.
>
> Q3: Does this assume each customer end-site will be allocated one same size PAU?
>
It does not assume that the ISP necessarily will do so, but, it does measure anticipated utilization based on the assumption that the ISP will do so. An ISP will have a single PAU size which will be used to measure all of their utilization. It will be their smallest assignment unit. So, an ISP which gives /60s to some customers and /48s to others will have to count those /48s as multiple /60s. They will have to justify the number of /60s they give to sites that receive /48s. If they give /48s to all end-sites, then, they will not need to justify anything until an end-site receives a second /48.
Does that answer your question?
> 4. Section 5.1 subsequent allocation criteria:
>
> - 75% or more utilization of their total address space, OR
> - One or more facilities which have reached a 90% utilization......
> there are no available blocks of sufficient size in the providers current
> allocation(s) to expand those facilities.
>
> Q4: How to justify 'there are no available blocks of sufficient size', specifically
> when the LIR has sparsely assigned 160 * /40 from a /32, now one of the /40 site becomes full,
> and no more contiguous /40 left, will this be considered meet the criteria.
>
I believe that the allocation of a second non-contiguous /40 to that serving site would be expected in that case. If you have utilized 75% of your /40s (192 /40s assigned) and you fill 90% of one of them, then I believe you would qualify for an additional block.
I agree this is an area where clarification could be useful in the policy. Perhaps we can gather community feedback on the desired outcome in Busan and incorporate that into a clarification for last call? I confess I am not 100% well versed in the APNIC policy development process.
> 5. Section 2.4. The HD ratio ......Using nibble-boundaries and rounding up actually yields similar
> results with simpler math.
>
> Q5: How to understand 'nibble-boundaries round up' will have the similiar results with HD?
> With a consistent 75% usage and unpredictable 1-8 times rounding up,
> my humble feeling is the utilization is unpredictable, but the HD-ratio requirement is predictable.
>
> Prefix HD require Utlization:
> ----------------------------
> /32 36.9%
> /28 31.2%
> /24 26.4%
> /20 22.4%
>
> In my premature estimation, the 75% usage plus round up maybe more
> relax than HD requirement in small network, but it maybe more restricted than HD in large network.
>
Yes, it can be (slightly) more restrictive in a large network. It is (significantly) more liberal in some small network corner cases.
> Q6: Does this proposal remove HD-ratio criteria completely?
>
Yes.
Owen
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2011 12:56:07 -0700
From: Leo Vegoda <leo.vegoda at icann dot org>
Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-098 Optimizing IPv6 allocation
strategies(simplified)
To: Owen DeLong <owen at delong dot com>, Terence Zhang YH
<zhangyinghao at cnnic dot cn>
Cc: "<sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net>" <sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net>
Message-ID:
<41F6C547EA49EC46B4EE1EB2BC2F34183769D9B701@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Hi Owen,
You wrote:
[...]
> > In my premature estimation, the 75% usage plus round up maybe more
> > relax than HD requirement in small network, but it maybe more restricted than HD in large network.
> >
>
> Yes, it can be (slightly) more restrictive in a large network. It is (significantly) more liberal in some small network > corner cases.
That is interesting. Could you show the curve for this proposal plotted against the current HD-ratio curve?
Thanks,
Leo Vegoda
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2011 23:32:32 +0000
From: John Curran <jcurran at arin dot net>
Subject: Re: [sig-policy] Article of possible interest to the
community
To: Mike Burns <mike at nationwideinc dot com>
Cc: APNIC Policy SIG List <sig-policy at apnic dot net>
Message-ID: <C99670DB-122F-42B6-99BF-4B6AE9825A42 at arin dot net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
On Aug 18, 2011, at 11:00 AM, Mike Burns wrote:
I came across a response to Mr. Vixie's article and thought it might be of interest to the APNIC community, particularly as it mentions pending IPv4 legacy address sales to Asian customers.
http://techliberation.com/2011/08/15/trading-ipv4-addresses-starts-making-internet-elders-nervous/
Mike -
I attempted to correct the factual errors in the article you reference but to no
avail, so have since posted a reply to the original IGP blog (attached below)
FYI,
/John
John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN
---
<http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2011/8/15/4877516.html#comments>
More factually challenged coverage of ARIN by Mr. Mueller...
by John Curran<http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2011/8/15/4877516.html> on Thu 25 Aug 2011 03:55 PM EDT | Profile<http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2011/8/15/4877516.html> | Permanent Link<http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2011/8/15/4877516.html#1511621>
Apologies for the significant but unavoidable delay in responding to this blog entry. Coverage in the IGP blog of Mr. Vixie's article was quite expected (as it is important information for the community) but I had hoped that Mr. Mueller might correct the blog entry if I sent him the issues in private. Alas, the IGP blog doesn't subscribe to typical journalistic nor academic standards, so I will now set the record straight directly.
Mr. Mueller's asserts that "ARIN is worried", "ARIN is nervous", and that ARIN is trying to protect its position in the current Internet number registry system; all of these assertions are false. While Mr. Vixie was Chair of ARIN in 2010, his byline on the article in question is simply ""by Paul Vixie | July 20, 2011". Mr. Mueller was apparently confused by the biographical information which followed the article.
Mr. Vixie is an ARIN Board member. ARIN Board members are free to speak their views on Internet registry topics, but that does not imply consideration by the full board nor make it the views a position of ARIN. In fact, regarding this particular topic, ARIN does have a position on record which is contained our 2 March 2011 letter to ICANN - http://www.icann.org/en/correspondence/curran-to-beckstrom-02mar11-en.pdf, which makes plain that we are quite comfortable with discussion of the structure of the Internet number registry system:
"Despite ARIN?s appropriate rejection of the Depository request, I would ask that ICANN carefully review the Depository correspondence and consider the issues it raises with respect to the evolution of the Internet number registry system. While ARIN and the other Regional Internet Registries are obligated to follow the framework agreed to in ICP-2 and related guidelines such as the IETF?s RFC 2050, the structure of the Internet number registry system is substantially unchanged since inception. This stability in design is certainly a valued feature given the instrumental role of the Internet number registry system in reliable Internet operations, but may not be the optimum structure in light of the many changes taking place in the Internet today (including IPv4 depletion & IPv6 transition, internationalization of Internet multi-stakeholder oversight, and ongoing developments in cyber security.) ARIN would welcome an opportunity to participate in any and all discussions regardi ng how to best evolve the Internet number registry system, and would consider ICANN instrumental in leading such discussions in forums globally as appropriate."
Mr. Mueller was fully aware of this position (but sought not to include it in his "analysis") as I discussed it in detail on the very panel he moderated on this topic at the GIGNET conference just a few months ago. ARIN is quite willing to evolve as long as there is global multi-stakeholder discussion of the changes, and a result that reflects the public interest in this area.
Apologies for length but necessary, as Mr. Mueller's selective coverage does a disservice to those who want facts in order to seriously follow developments in Internet Governance.
Thank you,
/John
John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-policy/attachments/20110825/8a74486e/attachment.html
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
End of sig-policy Digest, Vol 87, Issue 47
******************************************
This message (including any attachments) is intended only for
the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and
may contain information that is non-public, proprietary,
privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under
applicable law or may constitute as attorney work product.
If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this
communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
communication in error, notify us immediately by telephone and
(i) destroy this message if a facsimile or (ii) delete this message
immediately if this is an electronic communication.
Thank you.