Proposal for APNIC cable and xDSL policies and guidelinesThis is a proposal of the Broadband Working Group to amend APNIC-076 Policies for Address Space Management in the Asia Pacific Region and produce a guidelines document for cable and xDSL allocation and assignment practices. BackgroundAt the 11th APNIC Open Policy Meeting in Kuala Lumpur, March 2001, the Broadband Working Group agreed to develop a proposal for a set of allocation and assignment policies for cable and xDSL networks. The Broadband Working Group held a meeting in Tokyo on 1 June 2001 to discuss these issues. The proposal described in this document is intended to be presented at the 12th APNIC Open Policy Meeting to be held in Taipei, Taiwan in August 2001. Problems with the existing situationThe document APNIC-076 Policies for Address Space Management in the Asia Pacific Region describes the policies relating to IPv4 allocations and assignments, including those relating to cable and xDSL networks. Since APNIC-076 was published, there has been a significant increase in the deployment of cable and xDSL networks throughout the region. The Broadband Working Group has drawn on the experience of the organisations involved in allocating address space for such networks in its review of the current policies and procedures. The Broadband Working Group has identified the following difficulties with the current APNIC policies and procedures. Registration requirements are unclearSize of assignments to be registered At present, section 7.17 of APNIC-076 requires registration of "every allocation and assignment of address space". The consensus of the working group discussion was that it had never been the intention of the policy to require registration of every single host assignment. In practice, /30 - /32 assignments are rarely registered. The working group agreed that APNIC-076 should be amended to clarify the registration requirement to reflect accepted practices. Registration of residential information Section 7.17.2 states that "unless exceptional circumstances require otherwise, the administrative contact ('admin-c') must be someone who is physically located at the site of the network." The working group noted that although the correct registration of public address space is a central goal of the Internet registry system, the current expression of the policy raises important privacy concerns, particularly in relation to cable and xDSL networks where static addressing techniques are more common. Static assignment policy is unclearWhereas section 8.1 of APNIC-076 states that "APNIC policy strongly discourages the static assignment of one IP address per service", section 8.1.2 states that "An exception to this policy may apply to cable-based infrastructures". The opinion of the working group is that although this policy is consistent with the goals of responsible address space management, the way it is currently expressed can cause confusion as to the actual requirements for cable and xDSL networks and may lead to uncertainty when evaluating requests. Length of time for allocations is unclearSection 7.8 states that when making subsequent allocations to an LIR, "APNIC and NIRs shall seek to allocate enough address space to enable the LIR to meet all of its assignment needs for up to one year before needing to make further requests". In the case of requests relating to cable and xDSL networks, it is common practice for allocations to be made based on a three month estimate. The working group noted that the flexibility in this policy reflects the varying degrees of experience in LIRs. However, the working group also noted that the administration of this policy had the potential to cause confusion among the LIRs with regard to when they were entitled to request additional resources. Evaluation requirements for cable and xDSL assignments are unclearAt present, the information required to support a request for address space to be used in cable or xDSL networks is not formally documented. APNIC's current practice is as follows:
The working group agreed that it was necessary to make a clear statement of best current practice. The primary motivation for this is to increase consistency of approach in evaluating requests. The working group also agreed that the current requirements could be simplified to reduce administrative effort and make it easier for ISPs to introduce new services. ProposalIn consideration of the issues noted above, the Broadband Working Group proposes the following actions. It is important to note, however, that this proposal is not intended to alter the general principles or goals of address space management, but is simply to provide a clearer framework for applying those principles and goals to cable and xDSL networks. Amend APNIC-076 Policies for Address Space Management in the Asia Pacific RegionSection 7.8 Criteria for subsequent allocations This section should be amended to state that if registry makes an allocation based on a period less than one year, it will explain to the LIR the period for which the allocation has been made and the reasons for determining that period. Section 7.17 Registration requirements This section should be amended to state that every network assignment greater than /30 must be registered. Assignments of /30 or smaller, including host assignments, may be registered at the discretion of the end-user and ISP. Section 7.17.2 Registering contact persons This section should be amended to state that in the case of residential users only, there should be the option to register the ISP's technical contact as the administrative contact (admin-c). (Note, for non-residential networks the current "exceptional circumstances" clause will still apply.) Section 8 Specific cases This section should be removed from APNIC-076. The content currently in this section should be used as the basis for a set of guidelines to APNIC's procedures and best current practices (see below for more details). Create guidelines to APNIC's procedures and best current practicesIt is proposed that APNIC requires a document or set of documents that would describe APNIC's request evaluation procedures and the best current practices that apply to addressing various network services. Although this proposal relates specifically to cable and xDSL networks, such a "Guidelines Document" would also be suitable for describing other network services. Static assignments The Guidelines Document should require that all assignments be made in a manner that is consistent with the goal of address conservation. However, wherever practical, this document should seek to make recommendations based on the nature of the connection type, rather than by naming specific technologies. In relation to cable or xDSL networks, the Guidelines Document should note that static, one-to-one assignments are acceptable for services that are expected to be permanently connected. However, if more than one IP address is required for each connection, then full technical justification will be required through the standard process. Criteria for first allocation to new cable or xDSL services The working group proposes that requestors should be given the option of choosing to apply under either the current criteria (as described above) or under simplified "bootstrapping" criteria: Under the bootstrapping criteria APNIC or the NIR would base the allocation size on an assumption of the requestor assigning a /24 to each CMTS in their network. A bootstrap request would need to be supported by a description of the equipment in the network plan field. Note that the bootstrap phase can be applied to both startup providers and to existing providers that are commencing new cable or xDSL services. If an organisation requests more addresses than would be allowed for under the bootstrapping criteria, they would need to provide the full justification under the standard criteria. Criteria for subsequent allocations to cable or xDSL services The working group proposes that the current requirements for subsequent allocations to new cable and xDSL services be replaced with the following:
Furthermore, if greater than a /22 is used in a cable or xDSL network, then special verification may be required, consisting of a customer list (name and IP address) for a headend chosen at random by APNIC or the NIR. Comments requestedAs noted above, the Broadband Working Group believes the actions set out in this proposal would serve to increase the consistency of request evaluations and reduce the administrative effort for both registries and ISPs. Comments are now sought from the Internet community on any of the issues raised by this proposal. |