 Meeting Results |
| SIGs |
| BOFs |
| Programme |
| AMM |
| HM Consultation |
| AC Election |
| Sponsors |
| Social Event |
| Past meetings |
| APNIC 12 Home |
| APNIC Home |
12th APNIC Open Policy MeetingSIG: Address policyWednesday 29 August, Grand Hotel, TaipeiminutesIntroductions Brief announcements were made regarding:
Meeting commenced: 11:30 Chair: Takashi Arano, Seung-Min Lee TA introduced the SIG and explained the agenda. Contents
Presentations
Takashi Arano, Asia Global Crossing This presentation outlined the history and activities of the Address policy SIG and outlined the current agenda. Questions and discussion No questions. Seung-Min Lee, I-Names This presentation described the activities of the Broadband Working Group, particularly the proposal to develop clearer guidelines for the evaluation of cable and xDSL assignment requests. This proposal also set out guidelines for the registration of assignments. In particular, the BB-WG made recommendations on the following issues: Questions and discussion It was argued that requiring full technical justification for home LANs requiring more than a /30 is too restrictive. It was argued that a boundary limit of /28 would be more appropriate.There was a strong objection raised to the requirement of a full customer list identifying end-users. It was suggested that in many cases it would be contrary to law and to specific customer agreements. It was discussed that current practice at APNIC is to provide details of a limited number of chosen head-ends. It was suggested that removing the requirement for customer lists would remove the objection to this type of special verification. It was noted that this discussion arises at many meetings including those of other RIRs. It was argued that Address policy should not be concerned with the type of service, but rather with the nature of the type of site and its particular address needs. It was explained, however, that the purpose of this proposal is to make requests evaluations easier. There was a question relating to what effect an end-site assignment policy of /29 would have had in Korea during the recent cable/xDSL rollouts. It was explained that the practice in Korea is to evaluate the cumulative dynamic assignment of addresses at peak times. It was noted that ISP practices regarding the number of IP addresses assigned to home LANs do vary and that KRNIC evaluations take those differences into account. It was noted that this proposal does not require any changes to principles relating to transfer of address space. The Chair noted that there had been a limited consensus reached on the proposal in general, except for the issues of customer lists and full justification for assignments of more than /30.It was decided to take these issues further on the WG-BB mailing list. Yi Lee, Seednet This presentation summarised the current procedures of TWNIC relating to cable and ADSL assignments. The presentation noted that TWNIC's procedures can be categorised in terms of assignment mechanism. Questions and discussion There was a question about distinguishing between residential, SOHO, and enterprise subscribers. It was explained that any subscriber is able to apply for service under any of those categories. It was noted that these issues will also be discussed during the Database SIG. There was a comment from the floor that residential users do not need static IP addresses and that DHCP should be sufficient. Anne Lord, APNIC This presentation proposed a set of criteria for portable allocations of IPv4 address space. The proposed criteria are intended to provide greater certainty, efficiency, and fairness to IPv4 address space requests than are provided by current policy, while supporting more strongly the goals of responsible address space management. The proposed criteria would apply equally to both members and non-members seeking portable address space from APNIC. Questions and discussion (Questions deferred until after lunch break) There was a comment that setting out clear criteria is desirable. However, it was also suggested that there should also be clear policies set out for the actions that could be taken in cases where usage requirements are not met. It was noted that establishing clear criteria would save a great deal of administrative effort. In clarification to a question, it was noted that this proposal would not affect existing registration policies. It was explained that special exceptions to the general criteria could be possible under this proposal. In this respect, reference was made to the proposal by APJII for lower minimum allocations in special circumstances. Consensus was sought on the details of the proposal as published. There was a show of hands in favour of the proposal. There were no objections. The chair noted that consensus had been achieved. John Sihar Simanjuntak, APJII This presentation described the special circumstances of Internet development in Indonesia and sought feedback from APNIC members on the possibility of lowering the current minimum allocation size on a case-by-case basis, where an ISP cannot obtain address space from its upstream providers. Questions and discussion (Questions deferred until after lunch break) There was discussion about the practices of upstream providers in Indonesia, which generally do not allow downstream allocations. There was a discussion about what fees were intended to apply to smaller allocations. It was explained that the assumption behind this proposal is that the same membership fees would apply to a /22 as to a /20. Questions were asked about whether it was realistic for the organisations involved to find a way of justifying the need for a normal allocation. It was noted that this proposal would have global impacts in terms of routing and filtering.It was noted that two years ago the situation was similar in Korea. The approach taken by Korea, in order to take account of global routability needs, was to allocate a /20 but to restrict the amount of addresses that could be used within that block. Subsequently, usage of the block would be reported to KRNIC and when usage was sufficient, the organisation would be authorised to use the rest of the block. It was noted that there will also be a small multihoming proposal to be put forward later. There was a suggestion that if small allocations were to be made, then they should be made from a specific range to aid routing issues. An expression of support was sought for the general principle in this proposal. There was a show hands which showed approximately equal support and objections (21 for; 16 against).The chair referred this proposal to the mailing list for further discussion and development. Break 13:15 ?14:10 Anne Lord, APNIC This document proposes a policy for making portable assignments to organisations with relatively small address requirements, but a need to multihome. This proposal is intended to promote Internet development in the Asia Pacific region by providing a clear policy that is directly relevant to current industry practices. Questions and discussion In answer to a question relating to costs, it was noted that the existing fee structure would apply.It was explained that this proposal is to make assignments under this policy directly from swamp space, in order to fill gaps in those ranges. It was suggested that a defined block should be used for these assignments. There was a call for consensus on the proposal as published. There was a show hands in favour of this proposal. The chair noted that consensus had been achieved. Philip Smith, Cisco Systems This presentation outlined a proposal to define clear criteria which would allow necessary small assignments of address space (no smaller than /24) to Internet Exchange Points. Currently, APNIC has no specific criteria for such assignments. It proposes that a specific reserved range be used for such assignments. This proposal also makes allowances for certain “critical services? Questions and discussion It was noted that ARIN makes such assignments from a specific address range. It was also noted that at RIPE NCC, request for `portable?address space are handled through an existing LIR and no special criteria apply for the assignment of address space to IXPs. There was a suggestion that “instrumentation?could be added to the list of “critical services? There was a question as to whether the three RIRs could jointly operate a single block for these assignments. There was a suggestion that there should be a agreed definition of Exchange Point. The definition provided in the IPv6 proposal was referred to and it was suggested that it be adopted in the IPv4 proposal also. That definition is as follows: A physical network infrastructure (layer 2) operated by a single entity with the purpose to facilitate the exchange of Internet traffic between Internet service providers. The number of Internet Service providers connected should at least be three and there must be a clear and open policy for others to join. It was explained that under this proposal, “critical services?provisions only applies to those based at Exchange Points. It was noted that this proposal only applies to the Layer 2 Mesh. There was a call for consensus on the proposal as published. The chair noted that consensus had been achieved on the general issue of assignments to IXPs, but not on the issue of “critical services? Kim Fulbrook, BT Cellnet This presentation, on behalf of the GSM Association, outlined the GSM Association's proposed addressing guidelines for IP addressing on mobile terminals. The presentation also sought acceptance or agreement from the APNIC community. The GSMA guidelines are based on categorising the types of services in question and recommend the use of public IP addresses only when mandatory or where private addressing is not feasible. Questions and discussion There was a question relating to whether any projections had been done for the various service types. It was explained that the general view within the industry is that approximately 5-10% of terminals would require public addresses. In clarification it was noted that it is not necessarily true that all terminals that seek to access the Internet will need a public IP address. It was also noted that trends in the mobile world are quite different to those in the wired world. It was noted that most mobile terminals are likely to gain access via a land-based server. It was explained that the choice of static or dynamic assignment is up to the network operator, but that it is expected that most will be dynamically assigned. It was explained that the GSMA expects that the RIRs normal addressing policies should apply, but that evaluation would be informed by the proposed guidelines. It was noted that the RIRs do not intend to deny addresses to any service that genuinely requires them. However, it was noted that trends do seem to be towards increasingly open access to Internet services. If that was the case, it was argued, then consumption rates could increase rapidly. It was also argued, however, that so long as phones remain within cells and communicate with fixed towers, then the potential address consumption should remain limited. The chair suggested that there was no need to seek formal consensus. He thanked the GSMA on behalf of the RIR community. Meeting closed: 15:45 Minuted by: Gerard Ross |