APNIC Open Policy Meeting, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
SIG: Address policy (Procedures) - Thursday 1 March 2001
Draft minutes
Meeting commenced: 11:00 am
Chair: Seung-Min Lee / Takashi Arano
Seung-Min Lee introduced the SIG and explained the agenda.
Presentations
Address policy SIG
Takashi Arano, JPNIC
This presentation outlined the objectives, procedures, and history of the Address policy SIG.
Questions and discussion
No questions or discussion.
IP-users report
Tsukasa Ogino, JPNIC/FastNet
This presentation provided an overview of the IP-users group, including details of their meetings, mailing lists, and activities. The presentation detailed the concerns that users have expressed about problems in current assignment policies and procedures.
Questions and discussion
An APNIC representative noted that the IP-Users meeting was a very productive and useful meeting.
Consistent and realistic policy framework for portable allocation and assignment.
Paul Wilson, APNIC
This presentation set out a proposal calling for input about clear criteria for first allocations and for PI assignments. The proposal emphasised the need to provide clear, objective policies that will ensure more efficient and satisfactory request processes. The presentation also raised the issue of contemporary multihoming practices no longer reflecting provider-based addressing policies.
Questions and discussion
An ARIN representative explained the ARIN criteria for Provider Independent assignments for end-users. The multihomed policy requires renumbering to be completed before additional space can be requested. It was explained that ARIN does have a problem arising from ISPs requesting as an end-user, as a way of avoiding the ongoing ARIN subscriber fee. However, it was explained that ARIN does hold reservations for subscribers, but not for end-users. It was also noted that organisations seeking end-user assignments are not entitled to make sub-assignments. It was also noted that the fee structure favours subscribers requesting additional address space.
It was explained that in the APNIC region large enterprises are always entitled to receive address space from their upstream ISP. However, in reality, ISPs will often refuse to make large assignments to potential competitors.
It was explained that there is a need to clarify the assignment and allocation policies relating to large enterprises which are not ISPs.
It was also explained that the lack of clear policy for enterprises wishing to multihome can result in difficult hostmaster decisions.
It was noted that in terms of global Address policy, the APNIC community is able to justify a minimum allocation size different from the other regions. It was noted that AfriNIC is also considering a smaller minimum allocation size. It was noted that this is not inconsistent with global policy.
It was explained that LACNIC are intending to commence operations with a policy that is very similar to the proposal set out in this presentation.
A representative from RIPE NCC noted that requests for small ranges for multihoming are also a problem in the RIPE region and that the need for clearer criteria has been discussed.
It was noted that the ARIN policies are predicated on a more developed infrastructure. It was suggested that it is defensible for APNIC to have less restrictive policies in the medium term in order to foster development of the industry in the region.
It was noted, however, that the allocation of longer prefixes, such as /22, does raise the problem of route filtering. It was suggested that APNIC could safely operate a policy similar to the one proposed while still using /20 minimum allocations. However, it was suggested that filtering of longer prefixes is not the same problem in practice that it used to be.
It was stated that RIRs are required to balance conservation and aggregation and so they require clear policies in order to do this.
It was noted that APNIC’s allocation rates are growing and approaching ARIN’s allocation rates.
There was discussion about whether APNIC should make subjective judgements regarding relative development levels in countries and using those judgements to determine the difficulty of obtaining addresses. It was noted that APNIC’s By-Laws do require APNIC to be aware of the needs of developing nations.
There was a discussion about the best way to proceed with this issue. It was commented there is not a very representative audience present at this SIG session, which raises the need to clearly present this discussion to the wider membership, both in the AMM and possibly by way of working group reports. It was recommended that this issue be both reported and opened for discussion at the AMM.
[break 12:25 – 2:00pm]
CATV/xDSL WG Panel
Takashi Arano introduced the panel asked to discuss the progress of the CATV/xDSL Working Group.
CATV/xDSL WG Panel
Takashi Arano, JPNIC
This presentation TA introduced the panel asked to discuss the progress of the CATV/xDSL Working Group and outlined the main issues for discussion by the WG.
Questions and discussion
There was a general discussion of the sorts of issues appropriate for this working group to consider.
ARIN cable/xDSL policies
Leslie Nobile, ARIN
This presentation provided an overview of ARIN’s current assignment policies and procedures in relation to cable and xDSL networks.
Questions and discussion
No questions or discussions.
RIPE NCC cable/xDSL policies
Nurani Nimpuno, RIPE NCC
This presentation provided an overview of RIPE NCC’s current assignment policies and procedures in relation to cable and xDSL networks.
Questions and discussion
The definition of “concrete needs” was discussed. It was explained that it is generally based on the deployment of equipment. In some cases an ISP may have more equipment than is justified by their customer base, so requests for additional addresses are evaluated on the basis of actual usage rates.
APNIC cable/xDSL policies
Son Tran, APNIC
This presentation provided an overview of APNIC’s current assignment policies and procedures in relation to cable and xDSL networks.
Questions and discussion
It was clarified that all assignments greater than or equal to /29 must be registered in the APNIC Whois database.
JPNIC’s current status of IP address allocation for broadband access
Akinori Maemura, JPNIC
This presentation provided an overview of broadband services in Japan and the policies and procedures that JPNIC applies to these networks.
Questions and discussion
It was noted that JPNIC does not apply the simplified procedure proposed by KRNIC but that they do believe they it appears to be a good idea.
IP address assignment for cable modem, xDSL and home LAN
Sun-Woo Shin, KRNIC
This presentation provided an overview of the levels of broadband Internet services in Korea and the policies and procedures that KRNIC applies to these networks.
Questions and discussion
There was a question as to how /27 was decided as the default size for home LAN assignments. It was clarified that the /27 would be used for an entire building, not for a single apartment. It was also noted that this presentation was not a proposal, but rather a summary of the current KRNIC position.
It was also noted that KRNIC attempts to base assignments on the customer numbers, but it was acknowledged that it can be difficult to verify customer numbers. It was suggested that basing assignments on equipment is easier to administer.
APNIC explained that it bases first assignments on the equipment and assigns for a three month period. Subsequent assignments are based on customer numbers.
It was also explained that it is not possible to prevent multiple ISPs from seeking to deploy /27s to a single building.
General discussion
The question of 1:1 assignment ratios was raised. ARIN acknowledged that some technical applications can require greater than 1:1 ratio. It was explained that ARIN would require full documentation in those cases. RIPE NCC provided a similar explanation.
JPNIC explained that it does not require less than 1:1 ratios. However, they do require justification for the use of greater than 1:1 ratio. JPNIC does not make a distinction between a business user and a home user.
KRNIC and APNIC also made similar comments.
It was noted that the presentations and discussions today show a high level of consensus of the policies and procedures. It was noted that there is now a need for documentation of these policies and procedures and a clear statement of the registration requirements.
It was noted that it is not the role of the RIR to dictate to the membership how much address space to assign to particular pieces of equipment.
ARIN noted that there is a danger of big companies buying a lot of equipment to justify requests, but then never deploying that equipment, leaving a lot of unassigned space. Therefore, it is necessary to be cautious about the period of time the assignments are based on.
There was discussion about the issue of privacy issues for registration of personal data. APNIC confirmed that it is acceptable to register the ISP as administrative and technical contacts. RIPE NCC confirmed that assignments are not individually registered, except in the case of static dial-up assignments. ARIN state “private residence” in the address line. ARIN do register the details of assignments to businesses.
It was suggested that there needs to be more input sought from the greater Internet community as to what is expected and required to be registered. It was suggested that concerns in particular countries should not be used to make ad hoc changes to registration policies.
There was a general discussion about the increasing use of internet connection sharing. It was suggested that for many home users such a system may be preferable to multiple addresses. Therefore, it was suggested, it may not be appropriate to recommend larger assignment sizes. It was suggested that this working group consult the global community. It was suggested that this could also be a task for the database group.
It was noted that there will be an attempt to hold a face-to-face working group in May and to develop a draft proposal to be presented to the next APNIC Open Policy Meeting
[break 3:30 – 4:00pm]
RIR statistics project
Richard Jimmerson, ARIN
This presentation provided an overview of the background, objectives, and timelines of the joint RIR project to provide Internet resource statistics in a common format.
Questions and discussion
No questions or discussions.
APNIC’s new ISP request parser and ISP request web form
George Kuo, APNIC
This presentation provided an overview and demonstration of the new APNIC ISP request parser and web form.
Questions and discussion
It was noted that the source code will be made available to anyone who wishes to use this tool. It was also noted that this approach taken in the ISP Request Form is intended to be followed in the re-development of all other APNIC forms.
Meeting closed: 4:45 pm
Minuted by: Gerard Ross
