APNIC 22 home » Minutes » Policy SIG

SIG: Policy

Minutes

Thursday 7 September, Grand Hi-Lai Hotel, Kaohsiung, Taiwan

Meeting commenced: 9:05 am

Chair: Kenny Huang
Co-chair: Toshiyuki Hosaka, Eugene Li

The Chair introduced the SIG and explained the agenda and discussed the charter of the Policy SIG. He encouraged the audience to participate in the policy development process. He then reviewed the outstanding action items.

  • action pol-21-001: Chair to move the discussion of the HD-ratio for IPv4 networks proposal to the mailing list for a further month to seek consensus and make a decision. Update - this has been abandoned due to lack of community support.

  • action 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). APNIC 22 update - ongoing.

    • Open.

  • action db-21-001: Database SIG Chair to post an item to the Database mailing list giving the status of proposal prop-019-v001, "A proposal for whois database query", and asking the community whether to close this proposal or continue it. Update - this has been abandoned due to lack of community support.

  • action dns-20-003: Secretariat to gather statistics about the extent of undelegated domains and report back to the DNS SIG at APNIC 21. Done.

  • action dns-20-001: Pending approval at each remaining stage of the policy proposal process, Secretariat to implement proposal prop-030-v001. Done.

Contents

  1. IP policy update - Comparative status in all RIR regions
  2. prop-037: Deprecation of email updates for APNIC Registry and whois data
  3. prop-038: Modified lame DNS policy proposal
  4. prop-039: A proposal to improve reachability of new IANA blocks
  5. prop-035: IPv6 portable assignment for multihoming
  6. prop-034: IPv6 portable assignment for end user organisations
  7. prop-036: Proposal to allow end sites to receive IPv6 allocations
  8. Large Space IPv4 Trial Usage Program for Future IPv6 Deployment activities update vol.11
  9. prop-033: End site allocation policy for IPv6
  10. Comment from JP on end site allocation policy for IPv6 prop-033-v001
  11. prop-041: IPv6 assignment size to critical infrastructure
  12. Experimental assignment for four-byte AS Numbers

  1. IP policy update - Comparative status in all RIR regions

    2. Save Vocea, APNIC

    This presentation provided an overview of APNIC policy implementation updates and the status of policy discussions in the various RIR communities.

    Questions and discussion

    • None.

    Action items

    • None.

    Top

  2. prop-037: Deprecation of email updates for APNIC Registry and whois data

    3. Terry Manderson, APNIC

    This presentation proposed phasing out the current system of email updates to whois database information in favour of using more suitable methods for such updates. This proposal is motivated by considerations of increasing security, minimising the impacts of network abuse, and improving customer-focussed services.

    The presenter also gave a demonstration of command line tools to make a live update to registry data, using a certificate, via an encrypted transaction.

    Questions and discussion

    • There was a question from the chat service about why APNIC should not continue with the status quo, so that those concerned with security can use MyAPNIC and others can continue with the tools they are used to. It was explained that although there are some costs involved in making the change, there is a need for APNIC to be more proactive about addressing security concerns throughout the entire organisation.
    • In response to another comment from the chat service, it was confirmed that the XML updates would apply to private and public registry data.
    • It was noted that if a laptop with certificate is stolen, a simple call to APNIC would result in the certificate being revoked.
    • It was argued that email can be secured to the same extent as other web services.
    • The Chair asked speakers to use the microphone and to state whether they support the proposal or not.
    • There was another comment from the chat service to the effect that some members are putting considerable efforts into automating email updates and would therefore like the choice of determining which service to use.
    • There was an expression of support for the proposal and a suggestion to form a working group to develop its details.
    • There was a discussion about the extent to which this may apply to NIRs.
    • It was confirmed that APNIC would prepare tools for converging data between APNIC and NIRs.
    • It was noted that APNIC should produce training materials stressing the advantages of the new systems over the existing ones.


    • The Chair asked for a show of hands on this proposal.
    • There was an observation that deprecating email and introducing synchronous updates did not necessarily need to be coupled in the proposal.
    • The Chair did not note consensus for the proposal, but recommended it be referred to the mailing list for further discussion.
    • The Chair did note consensus to form a working group for further study of the proposal. Shim Yamasaki volunteered to chair the working group.

    Action items

    • action pol-22-001: Chair to refer prop-037, Deprecation of email updates for APNIC Registry and whois data, to mailing list for further discussion.

    • action pol-22-002: Secretariat to call for the formation of a working group to further discuss proposal prop-037, Deprecation of email updates for APNIC Registry and whois data.

    Top

  3. prop-038: Modified lame DNS policy proposal

    4. Terry Manderson, APNIC

    This presentation proposed an editorial change to the existing APNIC lame delegation policy to bring it in line with best current practice elsewhere by amending the definition of lameness.

    Questions and discussion

    • None.
    • The Chair asked for a show of hands on this proposal.
    • The Chair noted consensus to adopt this proposal.

    Action items

    • action pol-22-003: Pending approval at each remaining stage of the policy proposal process, APNIC Secretariat to implement the proposal prop-038, Modified lame DNS policy proposal.

    Top

  4. prop-039: A proposal to improve reachability of new IANA blocks

    5. Tomoya Yoshida, OCN

    The presentation proposed to establish a new basis of cooperation between RIRs/ISPs to test and ensure routability of new IANA allocations to RIRs. This is motivated by the need to improve the level of reachability of new allocations.

    Questions and discussion

    • It was noted that APNIC is a participant in the Internet, bound by the same filtering rules that others are subject to. It was asked whether the benefits of the proposal outweigh the costs of implementation. It was suggested that all ISPs face the same problem. There was a suggestion that more research may be required to establish the extent of the problem more broadly.
    • There was a strong expression of support for the proposal as it is a very serious problem.
    • It was suggested that many sites may have the problem but that few face it. It was noted that research indicates that most of the filtering is near the edge, where operators don't read policy and don't update routers. In other words, this proposal may not reach the places where the problem actually occurs.
    • There was another expression of support as the process is worth doing; however, previous experience has shown that the process of contacting all relevant upstreams is too complicated. There was also a request for more help for APNIC to announce prefixes from nodes in Japan.
    • It was noted that APNIC has difficulty getting responses when querying ISPs who are filtering.
    • It was noted that to be fully effective, this policy would need to be coordinated across the other RIR communities.
    • It was noted that in RIPE NCC the debogoning system is in place and there is cooperation with APNIC when new prefixes are released in the AP region. The RIPE NCC system can test reachability, but there is still a need for manual investigation to find the true source of reachability problems.
    • There was a suggestion of sending this proposal back to the mailing list to resolve apparent confusion about the details.
    • There was a brief discussion about whether APNIC plans to implement debogonising procedures for IPv6.


    • The Chair asked for a two-stage process of seeking consensus on this proposal. The first stage is to seek consensus on support for the debogon project itself, then support for each part of the proposal.
    • The Chair asked for consensus on the debogonising project in general. He noted consensus to support this.
    • The Chair asked for consensus on making a rule for IPv4. The Chair noted that there was not consensus on this component.
    • The Chair asked for consensus on making a rule for IPv6. The Chair noted that there was consensus on this component.
    • The Chair asked for consensus on establishing an automatic icmp/traceroute check and notification to ISPs. The Chair noted that there was consensus on this component.
    • The Chair asked for consensus on sharing information for all RIRs. The Chair noted that there was consensus on this component.

    Action items

    • action pol-22-004: Pending approval at each remaining stage of the policy proposal process, APNIC Secretariat to implement the relevant parts of proposal prop-039, A proposal to improve reachability of new IANA blocks.

    [Break 10:30 - 11:00 am]

    Co-chair Toshiyuki Hosaka chaired this session. He noted that there are two similar proposals for IPv6 portable assignments. He asked that both proposals be presented before consensus is sought.

    Top

  5. prop-035: IPv6 portable assignment for multihoming

    6. Katsuyasu Toyama, NTT

    This presentation was to allow portable assignments to end sites that are, or plan to be, multihomed, regardless of their size. Under this proposal, the end site must be multihomed using the assigned portable address space in three months, otherwise it will be reclaimed. The portable assignment would be made from a specified block separate from address space used for portable allocations and should be the same size as in non-portable assignments, currently /48, or a shorter prefix if the end-site can justify it.

    Questions and discussion

    • None.

    Action items

    • None.

    Top

  6. prop-034: IPv6 portable assignment for end user organisations

    7. Jordi Palet Martinez, Consulintel

    This presentation proposed a temporary policy for provider independent assignments of IPv6 address space. Under this policy, the requestor must not be an LIR, but it must meet the criteria for an IPv4 portable assignment from APNIC under current IPv4 policies. The minimum size of the assignment is /32. Whenever possible, further assignments will be made from adjacent address blocks, but only if duly documented and justified. Assignments will be made from a separate 'super block' to allow LIRs to filter them, if required.

    This proposed policy is intended to be an interim solution until an alternative technical solution to multihoming in IPv6 can be developed by the community and would expire three years after a viable alternative solution to multihoming in IPv6 is developed.

    Questions and discussions (on both previous presentations)

    • There was a question about limiting prop-035 to multihomed sites, wondering what would happen if a site stopped multihoming. It was noted that the intention is that such sites should return the address space. However, it was noted that sites today do not necessarily return space today when they go out of business.
    • There was a comment about the need to explain the comparison of the prop-035 to SHIM6.
    • There was also an expression of support for prop-034, with the proviso that there is a need to further define the three year limit.
    • It was noted that there is no better routing model in IPv6 than IPv4 and that there is no reasonable plan to implement better routing within 10 years. Therefore there will be a need to make operational compromises to accommodate IPv6 in an IPv4 routing universe. It was suggested that prop-035 proposes a pragmatic solution to the worst engineering problems.
    • There was an expression of support for providing help to multihoming in IPv6. However, it was argued that the concept of temporary address space proposed in prop-034 is very worrying, as many temporary solutions can become permanent.
    • There was a brief discussion about whether the size of the prefix or the effect on the routing table should be considered more important.


    • The Chair asked for a show of hands on whether there should be an IPv6 portable assignment policy. The Chair noted consensus that there should be such a policy.


    • The Chair then turned attention to the specific conditions of the policy.
    • There was a comment that due to the size of IPv6, /32 assignments would be considered a waste of space. However, it was suggested that there are real issues with prefix size and filtering practices.
    • It was noted that multihoming remains a real problem, but the best solution may be to work on the beliefs of those who apply filters at the /32 level.
    • It was suggested that in relation to prop-034, there is a strong need to clearly define how to recover temporary assignments, otherwise there is the possibility of considerable legal expenses.
    • It was noted that it is hard to convince operators to not apply filters.
    • It was noted that there is already a policy to allow different assignment sizes, including critical infrastructure assignments. It was also noted that this policy seems to go against another active proposal about efficient utilisation of IPv6.
    • There was a comment disagreeing with the proposal to allow an end site to subsequently become an LIR.
    • There was a comment that /48 may be too long and /32 may be too short. It was suggested that maybe there should be allowance for other assignment sizes in between, to be determined at the time of the assignment. It was noted that this is the solution that LACNIC adopted.
    • There was another comment echoing the suggestion of determining assignment size at the time of assignment.
    • There was a suggestion to be conservative about the assignment size.


    • The Chair asked for a show of hands in favour of prop-035, then prop-034. The Chair noted that there was consensus to adopt prop-035.

    Action items

    • action pol-22-005: Pending approval at each remaining stage of the policy proposal process, APNIC Secretariat to implement the proposal prop-035, IPv6 portable assignment for multihoming.

    Top

  7. prop-036: Proposal to allow end sites to receive IPv6 allocations

    8. Jordi Palet Martinez, Consulintel

    This policy proposal is intended to provide a solution for the lengthy discussions that have taken place in the different regions regarding existing IPv6 policies. It also takes account of the changes that have already taken place in other Regional Internet Registry (RIR) service regions. It is an alternative solution to the existing proposals around IPv6 portable assignments.

    Under this proposal, the definition of "end site" would be broadened to include a wider range of end users, that have a legal relationship with the service provider. For example, the different faculties or campuses of a university could be considered to be "end sites" under this proposed new definition.

    This proposal would change the other existing criteria for allocations, allowing end sites to apply for an allocation; expanding the criteria of the types of sites to which an organisation can provide IPv6 connectivity; and remove the need to have a plan to make 200 /48 assignments in two years.

    This proposal would also remove the current description of the IPv6 policy as "interim" and remove the requirement to document the need for multiple /48s assigned to a single end site.

    Questions and discussion

    • It was noted that equivalents of this proposal have been presented in all other RIR regions except ARIN.
    • It was suggested that this proposal gives almost everyone access to an IPv6 allocation. It was noted that there may be a need to clarify that end users such as home users and small businesses are not intended to receive allocations.
    • There was a expression of opposition to this proposal. It was noted that there is a problem in the IPv4 world from small providers starting with PA space. It was argued that while this works, it is a compromise.
    • It was noted that APNIC has so far rejected only four requests for IPv6 allocations.
    • It was noted that the existing policy says that the requestor only needs to have a plan to provide connectivity to 200 customers.
    • There was a statement echoing the view that filtering on /32 is a red herring. It was argued that there is a need to conserve IPv6 address space.


    • The Chair asked for a show of hands in favour of prop-036. The Chair noted that there was no consensus to adopt prop-036.

    Action items

    • None.

    Top

  8. Large Space IPv4 Trial Usage Program for Future IPv6 Deployment activities update vol.11

    9. Takashi Nakamura, IPv6 Promotion Council of Japan

    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.

    Questions and discussion

    • None.

    Action items

    • None.

    [Break 12:25 - 2:00 pm]

    Top

    Co-chair Eugene Li chaired this session.

  9. prop-033: End site allocation policy for IPv6

    10. Randy Bush, IIJ

    This presentation proposed to amend the APNIC IPv6 address allocation policies regarding the definition of the default size of end site assignments and the calculation of address utilisation efficiency. The proposal is to make the size of end site assignments a local decision, rather than forcing a /48 assignment. APNIC would then amend its IPv6 allocation criteria to reflect the use of an HD ratio with the size calculation starting at bit position 56 as the unitary metric in the calculation of the ISP or LIR's end site allocation efficiency.

    Questions and discussion

    • Deferred until after next presentation.

    Action items

    • None.

    Top

  10. Comment from JP on end site allocation policy for IPv6 prop-033-v001

    11. Izumi Okutani, JPNIC

    This presentation provided further information on the previous proposal, by reporting feedback from the community about these issues. The feedback is generally in support of the previous proposal, although there are several issues of concern to be clarified, which are detailed in the presentation.

    Questions and discussion

    • It was clarified that the point of doing assignments on four bit boundaries is that the pain of doing certain things will help enforce appropriate behaviour. It was suggested some more documentation might help.
    • It was also noted that calculating the HD ratio on a /56 rather than a /48 is rather arbitrary and simply involves using the correct mathematics.
    • It was also noted that adopting /56 as the unit of calculation, you would get a 36 percent fill ratio using /48 end sites, as opposed to a 51 percent fill ratio if /48 is used as the unit. This would send an implicit message that providers can achieve greater flexibility by making /56 assignments.
    • It was noted that the lesson from IPv4 is that when there is only a small deployment, it is possible to change allocation policy with a minimal impact. However, by the time there is a massive deployment, there are major hurdles to reforming allocation policies. IPv6 needs to last a very long time, so the intention is to be just slightly more conservative than the current practices.
    • The was a comment in favour of maintaining the current practice of assigning /48s to end sites. It was noted that a recent calculation has suggested that /48 assignments could last for 480 years.
    • It was clarified that this calculation is designed to work for LIRs, no matter what size assignment they are making. It was also noted that the final choice of /48 or /56 assignments is a matter of philosophy that should be informed by the problems of the IPv4 classful system.
    • There was a question about the impact on the routing table of changing the assignment size. It was clarified that the proportion of entries in the routing table will determined by the amount of multihoming rather than the size of the assignments. There was a general discussion about what should be included in IGP routing tables.


    • The Chair asked for a show of hands in favour of prop-033. The Chair noted that there was consensus to adopt prop-033.

    Action items

    • action pol-22-006: Pending approval at each remaining stage of the policy proposal process, APNIC Secretariat to implement the proposal prop-033, End site assignment policy for IPv6.

    Top

  11. prop-041: IPv6 assignment size to critical infrastructure

    12. Save Vocea, APNIC

    This presentation proposed a clarification of the existing APNIC policy for IPv6 portable assignments to critical infrastructure networks operating in the Asia Pacific region.

    Questions and discussion

    • There was a report of some comments that have arisen in the JP community, regarding the need for multiple assignments, but suggesting that /32 is too large. It was suggested that /48 might be used, with /32 as the maximum. The speaker noted that this possibility had been considered.
    • A comment was made that the issue is ambiguous in the existing policy, and some operators have already made requests for multiple assignments. The intention of the policy is to allow an unlimited number of /32 assignments. The operators would receive a /32 and it would be at their discretion to break it up into smaller sizes. The question of anycast has also been raised, but so far been no operators have expressed an interest in using IPv6 with an anycast model.
    • It was noted that /32 is a very large amount of address space, far larger than would be required by most critical infrastructure.
    • A comment was made that when the existing IPv6 policy was first adopted, there had been considerable feeling that /32 was larger than necessary. This proposal would at least limit granting multiple /32s, in keeping with the spirit of the initial discussion.


    • The Chair asked for a show of hands in favour of prop-041. The Chair noted that there was consensus to adopt prop-041.

    Action items

    • action pol-22-007: Pending approval at each remaining stage of the policy proposal process, APNIC Secretariat to implement the proposal prop-041, IPv6 assignment size to critical infrastructure.

    Top

  12. Experimental assignment for four-byte AS Numbers

    13. Akinori Maemura, JPNIC

    This was an information presentation regarding an idea for an experimental 4-byte ASN assignment trial.

    Questions and discussion

    • It was noted that it is not clear what relevant problems this test will be able to reveal. This situation is different to the problems around the class A experiment. It was argued that it is only necessary to have one well-placed 4-byte ASN advertisement. In other words, the scale of the experiment proposed is unnecessarily broad.
    • It was emphasised that people who don't wan to run 4-byte ASNs never need to make any changes to their current systems. Only those who wish to use them need to make system changes.

    Action items

    • None.

    Top

Meeting closed: 3:10 pm

Minuted by: Gerard Ross

Open action items

  • action 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). APNIC 22 update - ongoing.

  • action pol-22-001: Chair to refer prop-037, Deprecation of email updates for APNIC Registry and whois data, to mailing list for further discussion.

  • action pol-22-002: Secretariat to call for the formation of a working group to further discuss proposal prop-037, Deprecation of email updates for APNIC Registry and whois data.

  • action pol-22-003: Pending approval at each remaining stage of the policy proposal process, APNIC Secretariat to implement the proposal prop-038, Modified lame DNS policy proposal.

  • action pol-22-004: Pending approval at each remaining stage of the policy proposal process, APNIC Secretariat to implement the relevant parts of proposal prop-039, A proposal to improve reachability of new IANA blocks.

  • action pol-22-005: Pending approval at each remaining stage of the policy proposal process, APNIC Secretariat to implement the proposal prop-035, IPv6 portable assignment for multihoming.

  • action pol-22-006: Pending approval at each remaining stage of the policy proposal process, APNIC Secretariat to implement the proposal prop-033, End site assignment policy for IPv6.

  • action pol-22-007: Pending approval at each remaining stage of the policy proposal process, APNIC Secretariat to implement the proposal prop-041, IPv6 assignment size to critical infrastructure.

Minutes | Policy SIG

Top

Last modified: | © 1999 - APNIC Pty. Ltd.
Contact us | Privacy statement