|
SIG: Address policyWednesday 20 - Thursday 21 August 2003, Lotte Hotel, Jamsil - Seoul, KoreaMinutes Meeting commenced: 2:05 pm Chair: Takashi Arano Co-chairs: Yong Wan Ju, Kenny Huang The Chair introduced the SIG and thanked the sponsors. The Chair explained the agenda and encouraged participation throughout the meeting. Contents
Takashi Arano, Intec NetCore The Chair noted the following draft charter: "The charter of the Policy SIG is to develop policies and procedures which relate to the management and use of Internet address resources by APNIC, NIRs, and ISPs in the Asia Pacific region." Action items Takashi Arano, Intec NetCore Anne Lord, APNIC The presenter noted that policy proposals are now given numbers for easier tracking of development. This presentation detailed a proposal arising from discussions at APNIC 15 to formulate a structured policy development process. The presenter discussed the current processes for developing policy. She also discussed issues relating to determining consensus in group and mailing list discussions. She noted the self-regulatory nature of the current system and described the current steps relating to mailing lists, SIG meetings, and the APNIC Member Meetings. The presenter noted that the minimum possible time to reach a decision in the current process is approximately three weeks. She also outlined the problems of the current system, especially the potential for decisions to be taken without sufficient input from all relevant stakeholder groups. The proposed policy development process comprises the following: The presenter asked the SIG to consider the two options presented for the comment period. The presenter reported on the questions and comments raised when this proposal was discussed at the recent South Asia Network Operators Group. One of the questions raised was how to determine consensus on a mailing list. It was suggested that silence on the mailing list should mean that the consensus stands. There was also a suggestion that a four week comment period after the AMM would also be appropriate. Questions and discussion Action items Gerard Ross, APNIC This was a proposal to modify the current document review processes to take full account of the effect of consensus decisions reached through the APNIC policy development process and to provide a separate, simple editorial process. Questions and discussion Action items Izumi Okutani, JPNIC This presentation is intended to raise awareness of the concerns and perceptions relating to the current globally coordinated IPv6. The presenter reviewed the nature and significance of the concerns that have been raised in Japanese policy forums and on global policy lists. She categorised the concerns into substantial specific issues and issues not yet specific enough to warrant further discussion. There have been specific concerns raised about the criteria for allocation. One concern is the 200 customer threshold for allocation eligibility. There have also been concerns about the use of the HD ratio for utilisation. The presenter noted that most comments received are related to initial, rather than subsequent, allocations. She suggested that there appears to be a psychological barrier posed by the 200 customer criterion. There are also problems in interpretation of the current provisions relating to consideration of IPv4 networks. Mobile network operators have noted they do not necessarily make customer assignments in the same way as other networks and may misunderstand the intention behind the 200 customer assignment requirement. The presenter noted that there have been general concerns raised also in relation to subsequent allocations and reverse delegations, which may require better documentation in the future. The presenter also discussed the concerns raised in relation to multihomed networks and portable assignments. She noted that consideration of these concerns would need to take account of the effect on the routing table. In relation to transit providers, there have been no strong needs expressed in Japan, but there have been some comments on the global IPv6 mailing list. Closed networks and interconnected large intranets also raise issues that need further consideration. Finally, the presenter also noted that there are editorial and typographical problems in the current policy document. Questions and discussion [Break 3:45 - 4:05 pm] Izumi Okutani, JPNIC This presentation was a follow up to the previous presentation and proposed forming a group to develop a guidelines document to address concerns and misunderstandings related to the IPv6 policy document. The presenter noted the specific issues that needed to be addressed and noted that it is important to create a concise and relatively short guidelines document. The presenter described the role of this document, stressing that it would not be a policy document itself, and provided examples of the type of content it should provide. The proposal is for content to be provided by the document team and to be drafted and edited by the APNIC Secretariat. Questions and discussion Action items Ray Plzak, ARIN The presenter stressed that this policy is being presented on behalf of all RIRs, with the intention of submitting it to the ICANN Board for consideration as a global policy. Currently there is no policy determining how IANA allocates IPv4 to RIRs. The presenter defined the key terms in the proposal, particularly "available space", and "necessary space". He also explained the basis for the justifying "special need" to IANA. This proposal recommends that IANA should allocate on an 18 month necessary space basis, in units of /8. A new RIR automatically qualifies for /8. Additional allocations would be available if the available space is less than 50 percent of one /8 or if the available space is less than the necessary space. It was also recommended that the RIR receiving an allocation should be the body to make the initial announcements to the relevant mailing lists. Questions and discussion Action items Anne Lord, APNIC The presenter explained the intention of RIPE-261, which was to recommend an allocation method to reduce the fragmentation of address space in IPv6. It was noted that currently allocations are made by IANA in /23 blocks. The RIRs allocate in units of /32 and reserve to /29. RIPE-261 recommended a common allocation pool to be administered jointly by all RIRs. The RIRs would practice sparse allocations within this pool to maximise the chances of subsequent allocations to networks being contiguous. RIPE-261 was considered to be good in principle, but concerns were raised about how a common allocation pool would remove the possibility of filtering on regional grounds. The current proposal is that IANA allocates to the RIRs in units no less than /8 and that the RIRs practice sparse allocations within those blocks. The proposed next steps would be to seek general acceptance of the principle in the other regions and to develop a document that could be put forward for approval as global policy. Questions and discussion Action items Bill Woodcock, PCH This presentation proposed several updates to the existing policies on IXP assignments. The proposal is to provide an updated definition of IXPs, to recommend simultaneous IPv4 and IPv6 assignments (with matching values on the last two bytes), to remove the block on routing IXP assignments, and to waive assignment fees for qualifying not-for-profit IXPs (see proposal text for details). The presenter noted that the proposal for IPv4 and IPv6 assignments to have matching values is for convenience rather than technical reasons. It was explained that in developing countries, there is a strong need to bootstrap the establishment of local exchange points at reduced cost, in order to boost Internet development in those countries. This is the justification for the proposed fee waiver for qualifying not-for-profit IXPs. IXPs which received fee waivers, which subsequently changed their policies may become liable to fees. Questions and discussion Action items Paul Wilson, APNIC This was a proposal to support the transfer of historical resources under certain specific conditions. This proposal relates to historical resources, such as ERX, AUNIC, and resources allocated by APNIC before the membership structure. None of these resources are currently governed by agreements or clear policies. There is also a great deal of inaccurate data in relation to historical resources. Historical resources also often lack protection mechanisms and are at risk of hijacking, particularly for such purposes as hacking and spamming. The presenter noted that APNIC members carry the cost of maintaining registrations of early resources and that the activities carried on with such resources can also raise potential legal risks. It is proposed to allow voluntary transfers of historical resources to APNIC members. There would be no review of the technical issues relating to the transfer. However, there would be verification of the right of the resource holders to make the transfers. Recipients must be members of APNIC so that the resources would come under the normal policy frameworks. There would be no transfer fees. Implementation of this proposal would require a transfer form, the development of a procedure to validate historical registrations, validation procedures to confirm consent of the recipient, and registration of the transferred resources. Although there would be no transfer fee, the resources would be counted towards the evaluation of the membership tier. Questions and discussion Action items [Session adjourned 6:45 pm - recommenced 9:05 am Thursday 21 August] Geoff Huston, Telstra This presentation reviewed developments within the IAB in relation to local site addressing. The presenter noted that the use of site local addresses has been reconsidered and that there is now a proposal being developed in relation to a local-use address pool. The presenter raised the question as to whether the RIRs would have a role in the distribution of such addresses. The presenter provided an overview of the local-use address pool proposal, which would assign separate, non-aggregatable /48 prefixes. The working group has discussed the formation of a separate, highly automated registry to provide these addresses on a permanent basis for a small one-off fee and without technical justification. He noted that it would be necessary to maintain secure assignment records to ensure uniqueness, but there is no intention that such registrations should be made public. The presenter stressed that the model for this registry is transaction-based, rather than membership-based. The presenter stressed that the registry activities required for such service are very different to the activities carried out by RIRs now. However, it was also stressed that a single global registry would pose considerable problems. Other issues arise, such as the ability to maintain a distinction between these addresses and any other unicast address. Questions and discussion Action items Kosuke Ito, IPv6 Promotion Council of Japan This presentation was an update of a large IPv4 address space usage trial in Japan, which aims to encourage future IPv6 use. The presenter noted that there continues to be an increase in always-on, fixed IP services by participants in the trial. Many users are now beginning to trial IPv6 services, especially in wireless and broadband applications. Users have reported greater freedom and simplified network design. However, some participants reported a greater increase in attacks and noted a need for greater understanding of security issues. The presenter noted that registry operations have been simplified in this trial and the amount of manual work has been minimised. The presenter provided an overview of the registry system structure. The trial has been successful in convincing participating ISPs of the benefits of IPv6, which flow from the lower overheads and larger address pool. It has also raised awareness of the need for higher security considerations. Questions and discussion Paul Wilson, APNIC This proposal is about introducing a new method of evaluating address utilisation in IPv4. The presenter described the use of HD ratios in IPv6 address space to calculate utilisation in hierarchically managed address space. The presenter described how the HD ratio is currently applied in IPv6. In IPv4, the current rule for measuring utilisation is the 80 percent rule, which requires that 80 percent of the allocated space is assigned before a subsequent allocation is possible. This can pose problems for larger networks, where the level of hierarchical management is greater. The proposal is to use a variation of the HD ratio - the Assignment Density (AD) ratio - in IPv4 networks. The presenter noted that the specific AD ratio value proposed creates a utilisation curve which is significantly less steep than does the HD ratio value used under IPv6. The presenter noted that in IPv4, assignments are counted rather than actual site addresses utilised. Assignments would continue to be the unit of measurement under this proposal. The proposal includes a table of likely or allowable hierarchy depths to relate block sizes to reasonable utilisation percentages, in order to determine a reasonable AD ratio value. The presenter outlined the administrative changes that would be required to implement this proposal. The presenter described the potential initial impact on address space use of implementing this proposal. He presented calculations suggesting that the maximum initial impact of this proposal would be the waste of 0.81 /8 blocks, corresponding to additional allocations totalling 19 percent of currently allocated address space. The ongoing impact is estimated to be a maximum of 22 percent increase in address consumption. It was noted that these estimates are based on the assumption that large ISPs would grow at faster rates than smaller ISPs. The presenter suggested that the current 80 percent rule has penalised large ISPs and had an adverse impact on their management of addresses. It was noted that this proposal was not submitted in time for a consensus decision to be made at this meeting. Rather, the presenter sought an indication of agreement in principle so that it could also be discussed in other regions. Questions and discussion Action items Geoff Huston, Telstra This was an informational presentation of independent analysis into likely IPv4 exhaustion. It was emphasised that although APNIC has supported some of this research, the analysis and predictions are made on a personal basis only. The presenter explained that the analysis is based on the assumption that future patterns of usage will be similar to current use. It looks only at the amount of address space globally advertised in the BGP routing table. The presenter reviewed the various possible data sources that could be considered, such as the IANA allocation files, the RIR allocation statistics, or the amount of address space corresponding to announcements in the BGP routing table. The presenter noted that the IANA data appears to be incorrect for allocations before 1995. The model used assumes an exponential growth rate, where the rate of allocations is proportional to the amount already allocated. This model does not assume the emergence of a new application with massive address needs. The projection arising from the IANA data, projects that IPv4 address space would extend until 2019. However, the presenter noted the extent of assumptions inherent in this projection. He also noted the quality problems within the IANA data files. When considering RIR statistics files, it is possible to extract a log of historical allocation and a snapshot of current status. Analysis of RIR data reveals that approximately six percent of the total address pool appears to be in "holding pools" between IANA and the RIRs, making it hard to account for. The projections based on the RIR data show that the growth rate is lower than the IANA rate, and that exhaustion would occur somewhere between 2025 and 2029. The presenter noted that there is a reasonably high number of errors between the whois data and the statistics files. When considering the BGP routing table, it is important to note that not everyone sees the same addresses and that large amounts of address space flap all the time. Under this view, it appears that only 29 percent of the address space is currently in use. Analysis shows that many of the old class B and IANA /8 allocations are not advertised. The BGP data leads to a projection of IPv4 exhaustion in 2029. Closer analysis of the age of the unadvertised space shows that it was predominantly allocated between 1989-1995. It was noted that the emergence of RIRs has indeed led to public address space allocations being used. The presentation included a graph comparing the various predictions and assuming a demand for allocated unused space, concluding that the real break point in the system occurs somewhere after 2020. The presenter explained that several factors could completely overturn the model used in this analysis, such as the abandoning of NAT models. Questions and discussion Meeting closed: 11:00 am Minuted by: Gerard Ross Current open action itemsThe Chair reviewed the open action items.
|
|
APNIC 16 hosted by |
