[sig-policy] FW: prop-100 Returned to mailing list
It has been some time since the last clarifications were posted to the mailing list. In the meantime more comments have been received. I have tried to address all these comments through a consolidated reply given below -
Reply to Comments received in Prop-100
(Comments received during period 4/9/2011 to 31/10/2011)
This reply is in response to the comments received from APNIC members upto 31/10/2011. The reply is being given in a consolidated form to cover the various comments received during the period.
It is clarified once again that the underlying logic of the proposal is derived from the necessity to look at IPv6 address allocation in a new perspective as against the existing practice, which is an extension of IP address policies of the IPv4 era. IPv4 addresses were in shortage therefore, policies adopted for IPv4 were oriented more towards conservation and prolonging the life of the IPv4 address space. IPv6 addresses are in abundance and their usage has only begun recently. Compared to the role of IPv4 till date, IPv6 will play a much, larger and important role in the coming years because every device and service will use IP address in some form or the other. IPv6 will emerge as the most important standard of the century. The stakes are high for everyone and therefore, it is absolutely necessary to properly plan the usage of this address space. Therefore, IPv6 address polices should be more oriented towards planned usage on a long term basis for the numerous organizations in different economies. Prop-100 has been submitted with this view in mind.
Some of the learned members have tried to examine the proposal critically from a technical perspective only but in this process they have missed out on the larger objective of the proposal – planned usage of the IPv6 address space with assurance that every economy will have some address space reserved for it whether it needs now or in the future.
Regarding the comment that feedback of other RIRs/IANA should be taken as APNIC policy cannot be misaligned with other RIRs, it is clarified that there are global policies and regional policies. Regional policies can be different e.g. the policy of NIR. NIR polices are there only in the APNIC region. Similarly prop-100 has put forward a policy proposal for the APNIC region. It has been put forward as a regional policy proposal at this stage. Whether it is suitable for other RIRs, it is their call and they may debate it separately. If the community feels that it needs to be discussed in other RIRs also then it may be done. The proposal prop-100 is more of an administrative nature regarding organization of the IPv6 address space rather than a technical proposal.
There is a distinction between reservation and allocation. What the proposal prop-100 has suggested is reservation of the address space. Therefore, the address space remains with APNIC unless it is allocated. Though prop-100 does not suggest reservation for a limited period but if an economy is unable to utilize the reserved address space within a given time frame say 10 years, APNIC may consider reservation/allocation of that address space to someone else to ensure that the address space is properly utilized and does not remain locked up indefinitely.
There are queries regarding organizations seeking address space outside of the reserved national block. In prop-100 no restriction has been proposed. Therefore, organizations who have obtained address space from outside the reserved national block can use that address space within the country. Similarly if organizations have obtained address space from the reserved national block, they can use that address space outside the country depending upon the network requirements. If the country has an NIR, then the NIR’s operational policies would take these issues into consideration.
Some of the members have also suggested that instead of putting forward the proposal prop-100 for all the economies in the APNIC region, India can take a lead and apply the proposal within the country for a period of 2 years. Based on the experience of India, then if required the proposal prop-100 can be further applied to other economies in the APNIC region. It was also suggested that India may approach APNIC directly to get a /16 IPv6 address block through an administrative process rather than through a policy process. In this regard, we are taking up the matter with APNIC separately.
Further, for the benefit of the APNIC community members we would like to bring to their notice that the draft of the National Telecom Policy 2011 (NTP-2011) has been recently released by the Government of India for public comments, where IPv6 finds a very important place. The draft policy can be accessed at http://www.dot.gov.in/NTP-2011/NTP2011.htm Our country is giving lot of importance to IPv6 deployment and proposal prop-100 seeks to make this task simpler for the country by giving importance to forward planning of the Ipv6 address space.
R.M.Agarwal, B.K.Nath
India
Dear Colleagues
Thank you very much for taking interest in this proposal, Though we have tried to clarify the points raised during discussions and presentations and the theme behind this proposal however as a large number of members are not convinced. We will go thru various queries again and will clarify shortly.
Regards
R M Agarwal & B K Nath
-----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 Andy Linton
Sent: 06 September 2011 08:51
To: sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net
Subject: [sig-policy] prop-100 Returned to mailing list
Dear colleagues
prop-100 National IP Address Plan - Allocation of country-wide IP
address blocks, did not reach consensus at the APNIC 32 Policy SIG.
Therefore, this proposal is being returned to the author and the Policy
SIG mailing list for further discussion.
Proposal details
----------------
This proposal calls for the reservation of adequate IPv6 address space
for each economy in the Asia Pacific region. Future allocations of this
space to be made to organizations and stakeholders in the usual way.
Proposal details including the full text of the proposal, history, and
links to mailing list discussions are available at:
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-100
Regards
Andy, Skeeve, and Masato
_______________________________________________________________________
prop-100-v001: National IP Address Plan - Allocation of country-wide IP
address blocks
_______________________________________________________________________
Author: Rakesh Mohan Agarwal <ddgnt-dot at nic dot in>
Version: 2
Date: 30 August 2011
1. Introduction
---------------
A proposal was submitted to APNIC community on 29th July 2011 for the
reservation of a contiguous IPv6 address block for different
organizations / stakeholders in an economy. In that proposal I have
tried to put forward some issues regarding the current practice of APNIC
in the allocation of IPv6 addresses.
Further clarifications were given by me on 17/8, 22/8 and 28/8 against
various comments and observations received during the period after that
also. In the light of the above proposal and clarifications issued by
me, I am submitting a revised version of Prop-100 for better
understanding of the community members giving some background of why
this proposal was submitted by India.
The Government of India released a national IPv6 policy in July 2010 in
which it took the following important decisions –
1. All major service providers will target to handle IPv6 traffic
and offer IPv6 services by December 2011
2. All central and state government ministries and departments,
including its PSUs, shall start using IPv6 services by
March-2012
3. Formation of India IPv6 Task Force
For the implementation of the above policy decisions many discussions
were held with service providers and organizations in which they were of
the opinion that there should be proper address planning for different
organizations within the economy. So taking cue from this, Government of
India (Department of Telecommunications) set up a committee for
formulation of a National IPv6 address policy.
In the 2nd meeting of the committee held on 18th July 2011 in New Delhi,
members were of the opinion that India as a whole should request for the
reservation of a suitably-sized block of IPv6 addresses from APNIC. This
block can be allocated to different organizations by keeping in view the
long term planning perspective.
So it was decided that this issue should be taken up with APNIC. As
this was a policy related issue, and other economies in the APNIC region
may also have similar needs, therefore, the proposal was put up to APNIC
for address block reservation at the economy level for subsequent
allocation to different organizations within the economies in the APNIC
region.
2. Summary
----------
Right now IPv6 addresses are being allocated to individual organizations
in different economies by APNIC within a certain policy framework, which
was developed in the IPv4 era. But there are certain concerns with the
above APNIC policy -
(a) Contiguous address block allocation is not ensured by APNIC when
an organization goes back to APNIC for further allocation
(reapplying after more than one year)
(b) Non provision of address space for future organizations in
economies who are not in a position (or not aware) to ask for
addresses at present.
APNIC policy does not currently allow address blocks to be allocated at
the economy level, so through this proposal, we are seeking a change in
the policy for reservation of adequate IPv6 address space economy wise
for further allocation to different organizations and stakeholders
within the economy.
3. Situation in other RIRs
--------------------------
No other RIRs presently have a program to assess the needs of individual
economies in their region and reserve appropriately-sized address
blocks. However, economies in other RIRs may have similar needs and a
similar program of assessment may be appropriate.
4. Details
----------
In the current policy framework of APNIC, addresses are allocated to
different organizations in different economies when they are able to
demonstrate their need for those addresses and they apply for them.
However, in this process two requirements, mentioned in summary above,
are not taken into consideration. In the era of IPv4, when the addresses
were in severe shortage, such a demonstrated need policy was relevant
but in the era of IPv6 it is not.
IPv6 addresses are in abundance and their planning and distribution is
also at a very nascent stage. The main objective of this proposal is to
ensure that all economies (and the different present and future
organizations in those economies) can ensure they will get a suitable
share of the IPv6 address space, in one or more large contiguous blocks,
whether they need it now or at a later date. This will also help
different organizations in different economies to plan their networks in
a more effective manner as they will have a reasonably fair idea of the
IPv6 address space allocation in future.
This proposal can be implemented by APNIC in following manner.
(A) Analysis and Projection of Requirements
Each economy in the APNIC region is different in terms of population,
population growth rate, GDP growth rate, mobile, internet and broadband
penetration growth rate, social requirements etc. There could be many
other factors, which could be taken into consideration. These factors
would help to make an aggregate estimate of the present and future IPv6
address requirements of all organizations and stakeholders in each
economy. The analysis of each economy in the APNIC region could be
conducted in one of the following ways -
1. By APNIC, since it has more experience across different economies
and different RIRs.
2. Alternatively, a representative body in each economy, which could be
the government of that economy or a prominent industry association or
any other recognised body, may be approached by APNIC for estimating
the needs of that economy. However, in this case APNIC may need to\
conduct awareness programmes for their education and sufficient time
is also required for making such estimation.
3. Any other suitable mechanism deemed fit by APNIC for doing such
estimation.
Through these analysis and projection estimates, economy wise IPv6
address requirement (based on the requirements of different
organizations and stakeholders) will emerge. This process will
definitely take some time.
(B) Reservation of the IPv6 address space for different economies
(for their organizations and stakeholders) by APNIC
Based on the above projections and estimates, APNIC may keep one or more
suitably sized blocks reserved for different economies for ultimate use
of organizations and stakeholders of those economies. APNIC may also
keep some large blocks unreserved, i.e. not reserved for any economy in
the beginning, for any sudden unforeseen requirements in future.
The allocation of addresses from these reserved blocks to organizations
and stakeholders in different economies may be done directly by APNIC or
through an NIR (wherever existing) as it is doing at present. Ultimately
these addresses will be allocated to individual organizations /
stakeholders and not to the economy. As an example, in case of India,
after some discussions with service providers, internet associations and
other stakeholders, an estimate of current and future requirements of a
/16 block, initially, has been suggested. However, the firm requirement
has to be deliberated based upon a detailed study as suggested above.
Detailed operational issues for implementing this policy, if approved,
will have to be deliberated upon separately.
5. Pros/Cons
------------
Advantages:
1. The various IPv6 awareness programmes for different economies, the
various studies for estimation of needs of different economies and
management of the reserved IPv6 blocks as mentioned above will no
doubt increase the job of APNIC in the immediate future, but over a
long period of time, this would prove to be very beneficial for IPv6
deployment and also make the job of APNIC easier since APNIC would be
very clear on what future allocations it can make.
2. The economies and their organizations will also benefit since they
will have a fair idea of what they will get in future and they can
plan accordingly for the long term for IPv6 deployment.
Disadvantages:
1. There may be short term workload/financial implications for APNIC
for analysis and projection studies, training and awareness etc.
These however, should not be a constraint because otherwise also
APNIC has to work for IPv6 awareness and its deployment in all
economies in APNIC region.
6. Effect on APNIC
------------------
1. It would prove to be very beneficial for IPv6 deployment and also
make the job of APNIC easier since APNIC would be very clear on what
future allocations it can make.
2. Address allocation will be more organized and orderly.
7. Effect on NIRs
-----------------
NIRs can allocate IP addresses to individual members in its geographical
area from the reserved blocks as per the actual projections of
individual members.
* 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
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1392 / Virus Database: 1520/3879 - Release Date: 09/05/11
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1411 / Virus Database: 2092/3992 - Release Date: 11/02/11