Policy SIG
Minutes
Thursday 2 March 2006, Perth Convention and Exhibition Centre (PCEC), Perth, Australia
Meeting commenced: 9:05 am
Chair: Kenny Huang
The Chair introduced the session and explained the agenda. He also explained the SIG charter and the policy development process.
Contents
- Review of open action items
- IAB report
- IP policy update - Comparative status in all RIR regions
- [prop-032-v002] 4-byte AS number
- IPv6 portable assignment for multihoming
- Large IPv4 address space usage trial for future IPv6
- Survey results in JP on IPv6 policy change
- Issue with critical infrastructure assignment size
- Summary
Review of open action items
pol-20-001: Pending approval at each remaining stage of the policy development process, Secretariat to continue coordinating global acceptance of this policy. Done
pol-20-002: Pending approval at each remaining stage of the policy development process, Secretariat to continue coordinating global acceptance of the HD-ratio component of this policy [prop-031-v001]. Done
pol-20-003: APNIC Secretariat to refer further discussion of the LIR survey to the mailing list. Done
IAB report
- There was a question about NGNs. The presenter noted that there is no single IETF view on NGNs. There has been work discussing the difference between the IETF's view of the evolving network and the ITU's view. The IETF is interested in issues such as quality of service and signalling and the tools operators will need to evolve the network.
- None.
IP policy update - Comparative status in all RIR regions
- It was suggested that if this proposal was adopted in any region, it could have significant negative impacts on IPv4 address consumption. It was noted that the LACNIC community is very concerned about this issue.
- It was noted that a recent analysis of the potential impact of this policy, which looked at the past five year's allocation patterns, concluded that use of the HD-ratio over that period would have meant a 47 percent increase in address consumption in the RIPE region and a 49 percent increase in the APNIC region. It was noted that if all RIRs were to adopt this policy, it could accelerate total address exhaustion by two years. It was also noted that if some RIRs adopted this policy then it could have significant impacts on the ability of smaller RIRs to get IPv4.
- It was noted that current consumption rates indicate a potential IPv4 exhaustion date of mid-2012.
- There was an explanation of the discussions in the ARIN region, where it was argued that by trying to fit a log to a linear means that it can't work well for both small and large networks.
- The Chair suggested moving this discussion to the mailing list for a further month, then leaving it up to the SIG chair to decide whether to continue or abandon the proposal.
- pol-21-001: Chair to move the discussion of the HD-ratio for IPv4 networks proposal (prop-020-v001) to the mailing list for a further month to seek consensus and make a decision.
[prop-032-v002] 4-byte AS number
- It was noted that this proposal has been shared within the JPNIC community. Although there were no objections raised, there were questions about how flexible the dates could be if changes are required during the transition. It was noted that vendors put features in routers when customers demand those features. Therefore, the dates were suggested in the policy to force a demand for vendors to implement features. However, it was noted that the proposal does allow for networks who can't make the transition by the proposed dates to still obtain a 2-byte number.
- The Co-chair asked for a show of hands in support of this proposal. There were no objections to this proposal and the Co-chair noted that consensus had been achieved.
- pol-21-002: Pending approval at each remaining stage of the policy proposal process, APNIC Secretariat to implement the proposal establishing a transition timeline for assigning 4-byte AS numbers (prop-032-v002)
IPv6 portable assignment for multihoming
- The presenter noted there is currently work underway to analyse routing table data and there is a plan to present this as a formal proposal at the next APNIC meeting.
- None.
Large IPv4 address space usage trial for future IPv6
- None.
Survey results in JP on IPv6 policy change
- Simply adding a /56 assignment size for SOHO
- Giving the LIR a flexible choice of using /56 assignments
- Allowing flexible assignment sizes rather than using fixed boundaries.
- JPNIC was thanked for this useful research. It was agreed that the balance between long term benefit and short term impact is indeed the critical issue. It is worth considering how much of the IPv6 practice becomes embedded in hardware. It is also worth remembering that a principle of IPv6 is that there will be no NAT and that every device will get an address. It was argued that any decisions should be made early, and any practices that follow, can be very hard to change. Therefore, it is very important to make necessary changes before it becomes to hard too make those changes.
- It was suggested that there is a greater need to explain this argument to the communities, as for many people it seems too conceptual at this point.
- It was argued that even now there is an example of an installed base that finds it hard to change. Therefore, maybe the current operators should consider this and conclude that with every year of current practice, the necessary long term changes will become much harder to make.
- There was a request to clarify the next steps. Currently the end-site allocation proposal is not active in this region (although there is a more detailed proposal in the RIPE region). It was suggested that a new proposal, consistent with the RIPE proposal, could be submitted to this SIG.
- The Co-chair asked for any expressions of interest in having this proposal submitted to the SIG again. The show of interest was relatively low. There was a comment that there is a difference between being in favour of changing assignment size and being interested in continuing the discussion. This was clarified and there was another show of hands generally in favour of continuing the discussion.
- There was a statement encouraging the Japanese community to also continue discussion of this issue.
- None.
Issue with critical infrastructure assignment size
- There was a comment that there appears to be no need for a ccTLD operator to have a special address holding as it can be looked up in the DNS.
- It was clarified that there are concerns about de-aggregating the /32 assignments.
- There was a discussion about the status of ccTLD sites in Korea deploying IPv6. The sites are concerned to all get prefixes of the same size.
- It was noted that there are currently /64s and many /48s being advertised globally. It was noted however that some operators now are filtering IPv6 based on prefix length.
- There was a general discussion of current practices and it was suggested that there appears to be no real reachability issues at this level.
- There was a comment about the RFC 2772 guidelines for 6bone routing. However it was noted that RFC 2722 only applies to 6bone, which will end this year, and does not apply to the real Internet. There is no corresponding written standard for the real Internet.
- There was a discussion of a web page containing IPv6 BGP filtering guidelines. It was noted that this page is well maintained and provides good guidance on what should be routed.
- None.
Summary
- It was suggested that the SIG should carefully consider the statements made today about the possible impact the HD-ratio may have on consumption rates.
- The Chair confirmed that he would be interested in the discussions which may take place on the list over the next month, before deciding whether or not to proceed with this proposal.
- None.
The Chair reviewed the open action items
Leslie Daigle, IAB
Presentation [pdf]
The presentation gave an overview of the IAB and IETF and reviewed their current work. The IETF is a formal body for defining technical standards, but it also is made up of many groups that bring expertise to contribute to working groups and other activities. The IAB has the responsibility for "big picture" architecture. The presenter briefly described the RFC process.
The IAB's technical focus for the past year has included IPv6, Internet architecture, and unwanted traffic. The IAB has established the general architecture discussion list, which is open to all. The presenter noted that there are still open technical questions for IPv6 deployment. There are some "ad hoc" committee performing this work. These committees have no authority or decision making powers, but can bring great expertise to the discussions. The presenter mentioned work on topics such as IPv6 special addresses and HD-ratio considerations. There is also a multihoming IPv6 BoF happening now.
For IPv6, the main work is finished, but there are certain issues that need to be dealt with. Mobility and signaling are other topics the IAB is dealing with. Security is another important work area and there is a project dealing with pragmatic approaches to lightweight security. The presenter noted various other work areas underway in the IETF now.
Questions and discussion
Action items
Save Vocea, APNIC
This presentation reported on the status of policy proposals. In November 2005, the EC endorsed all the proposals that reached consensus during the last cycle of the policy development process.
There is only one policy proposal for this current meeting.
The presenter reviewed recent policy developments in the other regions, which are detailed in the presentation. The presenter described the status of the ongoing IPv6 proposals in the other regions.
There are now discussions of 4-byte ASNs ongoing in all regions.
The presenter described the progress of the proposal to apply HD-ratio to IPv4 networks. The proposal has not received further support in this region from the mailing list discussion. It is in its last call in the RIPE region, but has been abandoned in the ARIN and LACNIC regions. The presenter sought guidance from the SIG chairs about how to proceed with this proposal, since it has been under discussion on the mailing list for some time.
Questions and discussion
Action items
Geoff Huston, APNIC
This presentation proposes a solution to the exhaustion of 2-byte ASNs. The presenter argued that the current ASN pool could be exhausted by 2001. He argued that it is better to plan for an early, orderly transition to avoid panic at the end of the number pool. He noted that on most routers, there is currently no code to support 32-bit ASNs.
There is currently an IETF document that describes a solution for implementing 32-bit ASNs. The presenter noted that in some networks it may take some years to complete the transition.
It should be possible to complete the establishment of a 32-bit ASN registry by 1 January 2007. It is proposed to allow experimental use of 32-bit numbers by that date, according to normal allocation practices. It is further proposed that by 1 January 2009, 32-bit numbers will be allocated by default, leaving sufficient 16-bit numbers to be expressly requested for those who are unable to use the 32-bit numbers. By 1 January 2010, there would be just one 32-bit number pool and all ASNs should be considered as 4-byte numbers.
This proposal does not extend the private ASN pool or define documentation numbers.
The presenter suggested that any RIR can adopt this policy unilaterally and there is no need for global coordination.
Questions and discussion
Action items
Toshiyuki Hosaka, JPNIC (on behalf of Katsuyasu Toyama, NTT)
Presentation [pdf]
This presenter noted that the author of this presentation is not at the meeting, but is available on Jabber chat to answer questions.
The presentation reviews the discussions in Japan relating to IPv6 portable assignments for multihoming. The presenter described the principles behind the suggestion. These include the standard principles of IPv6 allocation policies, but also add the need to be flexible for business and operational needs, control of the routing table, and fairness throughout the community.
Currently there are various discussions on this issue in the PPML mailing list in the ARIN region. One of the main issues for discussion is how to set the requirement for PI assignments.
The presenter suggested that there are two types of organisation that may require PI assignments. The first is small ISPs that can't meet the requirement for an allocation. The second type are end sites. The focus for the discussion is really end-sites, as the small ISPs should be the focus of changes to the normal allocation policy.
The presenter noted that there is no differentiation by size of end-sites, as this is a separate issue from their need for PI space.
The presenter noted that it is inevitable that multihoming will punch holes in aggregated ranges, resulting in an impact on the global routing table. Therefore it may be more constructive to allow PI assignments from a particular block, which will have the same effect on the routing table, but without punching holes. This could help prevent chaos in portable allocation ranges.
In the draft policy proposal, the end sites must be multihomed within three months, or the address space can be reclaimed. The end site must pay a fee. Portable assignments should be made from a specified block and should be the same size as the normal end site assignments, which is currently /48.
Questions and discussion
Action items
[Break 10:20 am - 11:00 am]
At this point, the Co-chair Toshiyuki Hosaka continued the chairing of this meeting.
Kosuke Ito, IPv6 Promotion Council of Japan
Presentation [pdf]
This presentation continued a regular report on the progress of the large space IPv4 trial usage program in Japan, which is intended to promote IPv6 deployment activities. Phase 1 was completed at the end of 2005. The program has been extended until the end of 2008, with the support of the Policy SIG.
There were six participants in Phase 1. One of those participants successfully moved to IPv6, operating a WiMAX carrier service. The project organisers have been gathering reports from the participants about their experiences to date.
The reports have been showing that large address allocations allow lower cost always-on broadband services, multiple fixed-IP services, and several other benefits. All participants have been considering how to transition to IPv6. They expect IPv6 to lead to cost savings and easy service deployments. However, many hardware devices and applications are not fully ready for all services, such as load balancing and security services.
There are still some barriers to total IPv6 transition. Many large ISPs in Japan have deployed IPv6 services, but not all have, so end-to-end IPv6 services are not always possible. Some IPv4 networks are not allowing easy IPv6 operation. Application level services, such as web authentication services and browsers, are not yet fully ready for IPv6. Participants have noted that additional care is needed for IPv6 DoS attacks and spam filtering.
Contracts are being renewed to continue the program. It is intended to complete the trial by the end of 2008. Participants must set a goal for IPv6 deployment and produce a deployment schedule. They will then have to return their IPv4 address space at the end of the trial.
The presenter listed the participants in the second phase of the trial and their intended services.
Questions and discussion
Action items
Izumi Okutani, JPNIC
This presentation introduces the results of JPNIC's survey on the proposed IPv6 assignment sizes. It was proposed at APNIC 20 to add a new default IPv6 assignment size of /56. One community member had raised a strong a concern about that proposal. JPNIC sought to investigate whether this concern was representative of the community.
There are 64 LIRs in Japan using IPv6. They were all surveyed and 36 responded. They were asked how the policy change would impact on their services.
There were three cases suggested:
Most respondents reported that none of the scenarios would have much impact on their services. Those who did report a possible impact said they would have to change the way they targeted their services. Most reported no likely impact on their networks. The presenter provided a detailed breakdown of the results, which are contained in the presentation.
She reported that most respondents suggested that the policy change may cost them approximately one million yen to implement. They also thought that flexible assignment boundaries would be more expensive to administer. There was also a feeling that the number of policy changes proposed could affect the perception of IPv6 as a stable technology. Many participants were still not sure why these proposed changes were necessary. There was also concern expressed about the differences in opinion between the JPNIC and the ARIN regions relating to fixed assignment boundaries.
In summary, the JP IPv6 operators do not expect major impacts to services, but do expect that the proposed changes could cost a lot of money to implement. While case 3 appears to have the least impact on services, it raises the most concern about costs. The presenter suggested that if the proposed change is shown to be in the best interests of the Internet then the Japanese operators are not likely to oppose them, but they still need more explanation as to why this is necessary. The presenter called for consideration of the balance between long term benefit and short term impact.
Questions and discussion
Action items
Yong-Wan Ju & Billy Cheon, KRNIC of NIDA
This presentation discussed some perceived problems in the KRNIC community relating to the critical infrastructure assignment policy. The minimum IPv6 assignment size for critical infrastructure is currently /32. Some ccTLD sites have suggested that a /29 assignment would be appropriate. However, there may have been a misunderstanding about the exact meaning of the policy.
The presenter explained that the concern of the ccTLDs is about routing policy and fear of being filtered from global routing. The presenter asked for anyone with similar experience to let him know.
Questions and discussion
Action items
Kenny Huang
The Chair summarised the morning's session and asked for any further comments on the open action relating to [prop-020-v001] Application of HD ratio to IPv4.
Questions and discussion
Action items
Meeting closed: 12:15 pm
Minuted by: Gerard Ross
Open action items
pol-21-001: Chair to move the discussion of the HD-ratio for IPv4 networks proposal (prop-020-v001) to the mailing list for a further month to seek consensus and make a decision.
-
pol-21-002: Pending approval at each remaining stage of the policy proposal process, APNIC Secretariat to implement the proposal establishing a transition timeline for assigning 4-byte AS numbers (prop-032-v002)
