Address policy SIG
Thursday 26 October 2000, Novotel Brisbane
Minutes
Meeting commenced: 11:15
Chair: Takashi Arano
- Introduction and Agenda
- Presentations
- Separate assignment policies for end users and ISPs
- Criteria for PA allocations
- have used a /22 from upstream provider;
- plan to be multihomed within 3 months;
- have a detailed plan for use of /21 in a year;
- agree to renumber out of existing space within 18 months.
- plan to be multihomed within 3 months;
- have a detailed plan for use of /22 immediately (3months) and /21 in one year;
- provide documentary evidence such as purchase receipts, if required by APNIC.
- IAB/IESG Recommendations on IPv6 Address Allocation
- GPRS Operation of CMCC (China Mobile Communications Corporation)
- IP addressing guidelines for GPRS network infrastructure
- How to evaluate IP address assignment for cable modem, xDSL and home LAN
- IP address requirements for mobile phones
- Address Council Election
- Service guideline standards for common evaluation principles
The agenda was amended to include a presentation by Sun Shoaling on the GPRS operation of CMCC. This presentation had been scheduled for the Plenary but was not able to be given at that time. As a result, the lunch break was reduced to one hour.
Izumi Okutani, JPNIC
[ Presentation (Powerpoint) | Discussion paper ]
JPNIC proposed developing separate policies for assignments to ISPs and end-users.
Questions and Discussion
There was a brief discussion about the level of customer information JPNIC requires from organisations requesting addresses for cable networks.
A request was made for clear definitions of the terms "end-user" and "ISP", especially in relation to university networks providing service to staff and students. It was explained that when determining whether an organisation is an ISP, the factors to consider would include the number of users connected to the network and whether services are to be offered externally. It was also explained that it can sometimes be difficult to make the distinction between "ISP" and "end-user", but if this poses a problem in a particular case then the organisation would be required to establish that it is an ISP.
There was a suggestion from the floor that this proposal is based around the assumption that addresses are getting more scarce and that, therefore, the application process needs to become more complex. It was suggested that instead of creating more rules, a better approach might be to simply make it more expensive to get more addresses, so that ISPs will have a financial incentive to more accurately state their needs.
In response to a request from the Chair, an APNIC representative explained that APNIC's practice is to make allocations for up to one year, depending on a number of factors including the degree of substantiation and the complexity of the network to be deployed. It was explained that there are cases where APNIC will allocate for a period of less than a year, but the exact length of that shorter period is not fixed in policy.
It was confirmed in response to a question from the floor that this proposal is about assignments not allocations.
Consensus/Action Items
The Chair suggested that the proposal should be developed further. In particular, he suggested the definitions of "ISP" and "end-user" need more clarity and the assignment periods may need to be specified.
Anne Lord, APNIC
[ Presentation (Powerpoint) | Discussion paper ]
APNIC proposed establishing a minimum criteria for a first allocation of address space by APNIC. APNIC sought feedback and discussion from the community.
Questions and Discussion
An ARIN representative provided background of ARIN's policy, which also sets minimum criteria for allocations. He explained that there is no pressure from the ARIN membership to change the policy. He also explained that to open up the ARIN policy would greatly increase the amount of space allocated.
In response to a question from the floor, it was explained that under this proposal, organisations receiving an allocation would be required to renumber out of their upstream provider's address space.
It was suggested from the floor that the multihoming requirement in this proposal is not realistic and that the policy should be put forward without exceptions. This suggestion was accepted and the proposal was amended in the terms described below.
There was a comment that this proposal would make it much harder for smaller businesses to get address space. The proponent explained that the intention of this proposal is to have a clearer set of criteria which formalises what APNIC currently does informally, but is not intended to make it harder for organisations to get addresses. She also explained that this would help to educate the community on what is required.
It was suggested that this proposal raises two options, namely, to allow exceptions and deal with networks case by case, or to have no exceptions. It was argued that if the policy has no exceptions then APNIC will begin to have more influence on technology development.
There were comments that the multihoming requirement would be problematic in countries such as India, where political reality makes multihoming difficult. It was suggested that the policy should provide for exceptions in such countries.
There was also a request that APNIC provide detail on the likely effect this proposal would have on membership fees and APNIC resources.
Consensus/Action Items
The proposal was amended as follows:
If connected, the requestor must:
If not connected, the requestor must:
No consensus was reached on this proposal. It was agreed that more discussion is required.
Alain Durand, IAB/IETF
[ Presentation (Powerpoint) | Discussion paper | Additional information ]
The IAB/IESG group recommended making /48 assignments for all subscribers (homes, large and small enterprises), except very large subscribers, transient nodes, or those with no interest in multiple subnets. The proposal also contained a call for ideas to develop multihoming techniques.
Questions and Discussion
It was suggested that this presentation has been improved greatly since it was given at the ARIN meeting and that it would be a good idea for these clarifications to be reported back to ARIN.
JPNIC representatives expressed JPNIC's strong support for the /48 assignment proposal, based on the results of their member survey.
The issue of mobile devices requiring multiple subnets was raised. It was argued that there is a need for clarification of the effect of such complexity in devices and the proliferation of services and service providers. There was a suggestion that a review of the /48 assignment policy should be required long before exhaustion of the first prefix.
It was also asked that the documentation make it clear that the /48 assignment policy should not be considered to be fixed for all time, to ensure that it is not "set in silicon" as vendors develop on that basis.
Consensus/Action Items
A show of hands was called for on the issue of retaining the fixed /48 boundary. There was a rough consensus in favour of accepting this proposal.
Break 13:05
Reconvened at 14:05pm
Presentation by Sun Shoaling
[ Presentation ]
The presentation gave the background to CMCC, CMNet, and the details of their GPRS network and operations.
Questions and Discussion
There was a comment that India has a similar situation. There was a brief discussion of the CMCC migration plan.
Linh Duong, (Telstra Corporation Limited, on behalf of the GSM Association IREG GPRSWP)
[ Presentation (Powerpoint) | Discussion paper ]
The GSM Association proposed the development of a guidelines document, to be accepted by RIRs, for the addressing of GPRS networks.
Questions and Discussion
In response to a request for clarification, it was explained that the proposed IP address needs will be primarily for network infrastructures and that GPRS operators believe they will not have significant impact on the availability of IPv4 addresses. It was also explained that GPRS operators are not requesting that APNIC change its policies. Rather, the intention of this paper is to inform GPRS members of RIR procedures and policies.
There was a comment that because this is an informal guideline for operators, it does not need RIR discussion or approval. It was explained that GPRS operators have also made a presentation to the RIPE community, where they sought community consensus that this was an appropriate way to proceed. The GPRS operators did not propose that RIPE make policy changes.
There was further clarification of the way the address requirements discussed in the paper had been estimated. It was explained that this figure deals only with infrastructure, not users.
Paul Wilson explained that if operators had requirements for only a small number of IP addresses, they would be asked to seek them from their ISP. This led to the question of whether the GSM association knew how many operators had no current relationship with an Internet registry. It was explained that most operators do, in fact, have such a relationship and that, therefore, this would not pose a significant problem.
It was explained that existing APNIC policy does not specifically require that public address be routed publicly. However those who do not intend to publicly route their allocation are required to provide detailed technical reasons. Those reasons are considered by APNIC when evaluating the request. It was also explained that the RIPE NCC situation is similar and the general opinion there is that there is no need for new policies.
It was explained that the document presented here is intended only as a tutorial or informational document for the GPRS community.
The Chair suggested that there seemed to be some misunderstanding of the proposal at hand and suggested the formation of a task force to discuss the implementation issue. There was a further suggestion that the meeting should decide whether this was an operational issue or a policy one. It was argued that if it is an operational issue then it does not need to be discussed at the Member Meeting.
Consensus/Action Items
The proposal was restated as follows: that GPRS operators use public addresses on networks not routed publicly over the Internet and that they should use existing policies for making requests. It was put to the meeting that this proposal should be accepted as an operational matter and not an issue of policy. There was a call for a show of hands on this basis.
Consensus was achieved.
Seung-Min Lee, KRNIC
[ Presentation | Discussion paper ]
KRNIC proposed procedures and guidelines be developed by APNIC to allow NIRs to overcome the problems of assigning, evaluating, and registering requests for address space for new services, such as cable networks, xDSL, and home LANs.
Questions and Discussion
There was a comment that ARIN has developed common practices for cable providers in the US, based on the slow-start mechanism. There was also a comment that carrying all of the private details for each address is too much of a burden for the registries.
It was explained that KRNIC has not yet decided on whether to base evaluations on a one-to-one ratio. There was a suggestion that using a fixed one-to-one ratio would lead to a situation where exceptions would have to be made in the evaluation process.
There was a comment that the proposal raised issues of privacy in terms of the level of personal details registered. In response, it was explained that the detailed subscriber information gathered in the request process is not made public.
There was a comment that the developments in Korea are valuable for others to follow. It was also said that new devices and services mean that the address ratio used in evaluations may soon be more than one-to-one.
There was a question as to whether the intention is to apply stricter or looser procedures for dealing with large requests. The proponent explained that KRNIC wants to apply looser procedures for assignments, but stricter procedures for allocations.
Consensus/Action Items
The Chair proposes forming a task force or working group to develop this complex issue further.
Break 13:05
Reconvened at 14:05pm
Linh Duong, (Telstra Corporation Limited, on behalf of the GSM Association IREG GPRSWP)
[ Presentation (Powerpoint) | Discussion paper ]
The presentation explained the intended addressing approaches for mobile networks, using private addresses and address translations where possible.
Questions and Discussion
There was a suggestion from the floor that if IPv6 addresses were used behind a NAT there would be no need to renumber when IPv6 becomes available. However, it was explained that such an approach was not feasible due to the level of upgrades required to existing equipment.
A brief discussion followed on the use of NAT and the relationship with WAP servers.
There was a brief discussion of the basis for the GPRS subscriber estimates.
There was a brief discussion of the operation of GSM and GPRS WAP handsets.
There was a request for explanation of the status of this paper in the GSM Association. It was explained that previously there was no intention by GSM Association to formalise this; however, there now is an effort underway to have the paper adopted as guidelines for operators.
A question was raised about current assignment policy. An APNIC representative explained that until there is a more developed policy position then APNIC would make allocations for user assignments on a temporary basis only.
Consensus/Action Items
No actions required at this meeting.
Paul Wilson suggested rescheduling the AC election into the agenda for Friday, prior to the Member Meeting. There were no objections to this.
Ruri Hiromi, JPNIC
[ Presentation (Powerpoint) | Discussion paper ]
JPNIC proposed the development of allocation and assignment guidelines to standardise the procedures and criteria used by the NIRs. The guidelines should be kept up-to-date to take into account new technologies and business models.
Questions and Discussion
There was an explanation from JPNIC that this proposal is similar to KRNIC's proposal and that they would be happy to work with KRNIC on developing such guidelines.
Paul Wilson thanked JPNIC for revising their proposal to include the process and mechanism for developing such guidelines. He asked if this document would be intended to be of the nature of a manual to the APNIC policy document. He suggested that as a manual, rather than a policy, it would be able to be changed more rapidly than policies. It was confirmed that this is indeed the intention of the proposal.
Consensus/Action Items
Consensus that a working group should be established.
The remaining APNIC proposals (Under what circumstances should APNIC make PI assignments? and The future of ISP confederations) were withdrawn due to lack of time.
