MinutesPolicy SIGThursday 24 February 2005, Kyoto International Conference HallMeeting commenced: 9:05 am Chair: Takashi Arano Co-chairs: Kenny Huang and Toshiyuki Hosaka Co-chair Kenny Huang (KH) introduced the session and explained the agenda. Contents
Kenny Huang The Chair reviewed the open action items Update (APNIC18): The Secretariat has discussed this with UUNET, who report that they wish to keep the proposal open, however the original proposer is no longer with UUNET. Update (APNIC19): Done. Kosuke Ito and Yoshiyuki Ezura, IPv6 Promotion Council of Japan Presentation [pdf] This is a proposal to extend the current large space trial usage program that has been operating since 2001. The trial was authorised during APNIC 11 to use an existing pool of IPv4 address space to provide an environment that would encourage deployment of IPv6 and development of IPv6 services and applications. Since the trial commenced, there have been regular status updates at each APNIC meeting. The presenter noted that the program has achieved quick deployment of less expensive, always on connectivity broadband services for home users. It has also helped deployment of area-wide wireless LAN services, and new value-added services, such as fixed IP addresses, VoIP, and content delivery services. However, there have been some goals that have not yet been achieved. It has been discovered that real IPv6 deployed services are not sufficient for the participants to give up their IPv4 address space. The reality is that providers are now deploying IPv6 services in a dual stack way. It is now proposed to extend this trial by three years to the end of 2008. It is still intended to return the currently deployed IPv4 address space to the public pool at the end of the trial. Participants will be required to provide an IPv6 service starting plan. This trial is intended to promote a smooth shift to IPv6 deployment. Questions and discussion Action items Tony Hain, Cisco The presenter noted that an Internet Draft has been prepared to deal with the problem faced by some companies in finding limitations in the private address space available in RFC1918. The presenter noted that certain business sensitivities restrict the level of case detail that can be divulged. The presenter noted that an alternative is to get rid of private space and explicitly state that private networks are able to use public address space. It was also suggested that reducing the scrutiny of deployments may also help to reduce the problem. Questions and discussion Action items Geoff Huston, APNIC Presentation [pdf] This was an update on the development of a proposal to provide unique local unicast addresses, to be used in /48 prefixes. These prefixes would be self selected using random selection processes. The prefixes are not intended to be globally routed and the prefixes will not be aggregatable. It was noted that this concept would help companies avoid the need to renumber their internal networks whenever they change providers. These addresses would be independent of any provider-based addresses. The presenter described the address structure and discussed the selection process, which requires no registration. It was noted that all previous references in the draft to a common registration service have been removed. The document "draft-IETF-IPv6-unique-local-addr-09.txt" is now the only active document dealing with these addresses. The centrally assigned, registry-based local addresses are no longer under active consideration. Questions and discussion Action items Son Tran, APNIC The presenter first reviewed the details of the policy development process. The presentation contained the details of the following proposals which have been implemented: The presentation also contained the details of the following proposals which are yet to be implemented: Questions and discussion Action items [Break 10:30 – 11:00 am] Co-chair Toshiyuki Hosaka (TH) introduced the next session and reminded participants of the Onsite Notice Board. Anne Lord, APNIC The document [prop-005-v004] "IANA IPv6 policy for allocation of IPv6 blocks to Regional Internet Registries" proposes that IANA should allocate to RIRs in /12 minimum blocks and should allocate for 36 months. In the ARIN region, a similar proposal was presented at the last ARIN meeting. There was much discussion, but no overall consensus, although there was agreement that there is a need for larger IANA allocations. The presenter reviewed the details of the ARIN proposal. In the RIPE region, a proposal based on the APNIC proposal was introduced in the mailing list and discussed at RIPE 49. There was no overall consensus, but again a need was recognised for larger IANA allocations. In the LACNIC region, a similar proposal has been introduced but has not yet reached the stage of seeking consensus. AfriNIC have posted the proposal to their policy lists and it is expected to be discussed at the next AfriNIC meeting. The NRO has prepared a draft document attempting to incorporate the consensus achieved so far. This document will be presented and discussed in all regions. The presenter noted that flexibility may be needed in order to achieve global consensus and move the policy forward. Questions and discussion Action items Ray Plzak, ARIN This was presented on behalf of the five RIRs working together (including AfriNIC, which has now received provisional recognition). The presenter reviewed the details of the draft NRO document proposing a policy for IANA to RIR IPv6 allocations. Under this draft, “available space” is considered to be free space, plus reservations expiring within three months, minus the fragmented space. “Necessary space” is a calculation of the six-month allocation rate multiplied by the time period. The presenter also described the likely cases of special needs justifications that may be presented to IANA. Under this proposal, there would be an 18 month necessary space consideration and a /12 minimum. New RIRs would receive /12. Additional space would be available if the available space is less than 50 percent of a /12 block or if the available space is less than a nine-month necessary space need. Questions and discussion Action items Yi Lee, New Century InfoComm Tech Co., Ltd., Digital United Inc. Presentation [pdf] The presenter noted that his co-presenter, Mars Wei, apologised for being unable to attend. This presentation is a follow-up to a proposal at APNIC 17 to modify the guidelines for subsequent allocations to cable and DSL networks. The problem is that the way the current guidelines consider the number of subscribers may not reflect the actual need. The working group now wishes to include support for DSL services and add consideration of IP-based utilisation. The working group proposes the following changes: Questions and discussion Action items Anne Lord, APINC At APNIC 18, the Secretariat was tasked to conduct a survey of LIRs’ experience of resource management practices to allow a better understanding of issues faced by LIRs in trying to achieve 80 percent utilisation. In IPv4, 80 percent utilisation is required to qualify for an additional allocation. There is no allowance for hierarchical structures that are required in large networks, although the IPv6 policy makes this allowance by using the HD ratio. Therefore, there has been a proposal to adopt a modified use of the HD ratio in IPv4 address policy. However, it was felt that more information was required before this issue could be resolved. The APNIC Secretariat has now developed a draft questionnaire, with assistance from NIRs, in particular, TWNIC, which has conducted a similar survey. Feedback on the survey is now being received, and a final draft will then be prepared. The survey will then be translated and circulated and responses will be analysed and the analysis will be published. The draft survey is designed to be qualitative and will be conducted with the assistance of face-to-face interviews. It will also include asking respondents to provide diagrams of their network architecture. The presenter asked for volunteers to help provide feedback on the draft survey. Questions and discussion Action items David Chen, TWNIC The presentation was a report on a survey that TWNIC has already conducted on IPv4 address management practices. It was conducted to help introduce the concept of the HD ratio within Taiwan and to help identify any problems caused by the 80 percent utilisation policy. The presentation contains a detailed summary of the results of the survey, which received valid responses from 35 of the 55 LIRs contacted. The presentation also contains the questions asked as part of the survey, which was designed to produce quantitative data. The survey found that holders of less than /18 prefer to keep the 80 percent rule, but holders of more than /14 greatly prefer the HD ratio. The survey also found that the effect of new services is very high on holders of more than /12. When fragmentation occurs, the main causes (in order) are marketing, administration or management problems, and equipment limits. Questions and discussion Action items It was explained that Takashi Arano is now stepping down from the role of Chair of the Policy SIG. The APNIC Secretariat expressed its gratitude to Takashi Arano for his excellent service to the APNIC policy development process. There has been an open call for volunteers to nominate to fill this role. The only nominee is Kenny Huang, who was appointed unopposed to the role of Chair. There will be a subsequent process to elect a new Co-chair. Questions and discussion Action items Meeting closed: 12:10 pm Minuted by: Gerard Ross Open action items
|
