APNIC 23 home   APNIC home   Past meetings
APNIC 23 » Minutes » Policy SIG

Minutes for the Policy SIG

Meeting commenced: 14:00

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

Contents

  1. Draft SIG guidelines
  2. Policy SIG Chair election
  3. Open action items
  4. Global policy update
  5. prop-042: Proposal to change IPv6 initial allocation criteria
  6. prop-043: Proposal to remove reference to IPv6 policy document as an "interim" policy document
  7. prop-044: Proposal to remove requirement to document need for multiple /48s assigned to a single end site
  8. prop-045: Proposal to modify "end site" definition and alllow end sites to receive IPv6 allocations
  9. Large IPv4 address space usage trial for future IPv6 deployment - phase 2
  10. Evaluations of Growth-based Address Partitioning (GAP) algorithm with real data
  11. prop-046: IPv4 countdown policy proposal
  12. Resource management system WG update
  13. prop-037: Deprecation of email updates for APNIC Registry and whois data
  14. prop-047: eGLOP multicast address assignments
  15. Resource transfer and certification

The Chair introduced the session and explained the agenda. He also explained the SIG charter and the policy development process.

  1. Draft SIG guidelines

    Kenny Huang, SIG Chair

    The Chair discussed the new draft for SIG Chair and Co-chair guidelines, and asked all attendees to read it and provide feedback.

    Back to Contents

  2. Policy SIG Chair election

    Kenny Huang, SIG Chair

    The nominee for the Chair position was Toshiyuki Hosaka, and the nominee for the Co-chair position was Dong Yan. The Chair asked for a show of hands in support of the candidates. Both candidates were elected.

    Back to Contents

  3. Open action items

    Kenny Huang, SIG Chair

    The Chair reviewed the open action items:

    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.

    Done.

    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.

    To be implemented in March 2007.

    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.

    To be implemented in March 2007.

    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.

    Closed. Proposal abandoned.

    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.

    Done.

    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.

    Done.

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

    Done.

    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)

    Done.

    Back to Contents

  4. Global policy update

    Nurani Nimpuno, APNIC

    This presentation discussed the policy implementation status for APNIC and policy developments in the rest of the world.

    Back to Contents

  5. prop-042: Proposal to change IPv6 initial allocation criteria

    Jordi Palet, Consulintel

    This proposal advocated removing the need to have a plan to make 200 /48 assignments in two years, and replace it with a plan to make assignments in two years.

    Questions and discussion

    • It was asked why the 200 assignment requirement was included in the initial policy.
    • It was noted that KRNIC agreed with the modified JPNIC wording (option 2 on the presentation slide), which specified that LIRs should make assignments within two years.
    • The presenter agreed the word 'reasonable' was confusing, and noted he had a similar proposal with RIPE with the word removed. It was clarified that the presenter wanted to put forward the JPNIC option 2 in this proposal.
    • It was suggested that the bar of 200 was low in the first place, and changing this would be reckless. It was questioned whether a /32 should be allocated when it would be enough for thousands of customers. It was suggested that it is important for ISPs to plan for future requirements. The presenter agreed that planning ahead was important, but that the topic belonged to a different discussion.
    • The presenter argued it was not believed that this proposal would result in a substantial change in the number of IPv6 requests.
    • The presenter indicated agreement that IPv6 should not be given to just anyone, and that this proposal did not allow for address space to be given to end sites. It was not considered to be too loose, but if others thought so it could be modified.
    • The presenter suggested the current policy would exclude new commerce in the IPv6, because with the 200 criteria organisations would be afraid to apply for IPv6 address space because they would expect to have their requests rejected.
    • It was asked if people were opposed to making IPv6 allocations to ISPs in general or any organisation.
    • It was suggested people who currently had access to IPv6 were not particularly interested in using it because they did not see an immediate need. It was argued that the presenter was looking at this issue from a different perspective; a constituency that did care. It was argued that there would be no harm in trying the presenter's approach for a while.
    • It was noted that this proposal had been presented at many meetings and opposed. It was argued that the concept of a plan was meaningless, so the current policy did not block any entrants to the market.
    • The presenter argued that some ISPs don't have a plan. It was argued that if an ISP had no plan to provide the service they shouldn't get space.
    • It was noted that there had been no indication providers have been unable to get an allocation.
    • The presenter argued that consistency among the regions was an aim of the proposal. It was suggested this requirement should apply to other regions apart from LACNIC and AfriNIC.

    The Chair asked for a show of hands indicating support for the proposal. The Chair noted consensus was not reached.

    Action items

    • pol-23-001: Chair to refer prop-042: Proposal to change IPv6 initial allocation criteria to mailing list for further discussion.

    Back to Contents

  6. prop-043: Proposal to remove reference to IPv6 policy document as an "interim" policy document

    Jordi Palet, Consulintel

    This presentation advocated removing the word "interim" from the IPv6 policy document. The presenter suggested it would be beneficial to remove this reference.

    Questions and discussion

    • It was noted there were currently several proposals to modify this policy, and it was suggested that this made it an interim policy. It was suggested that instead it would be more equitable to apply the word to the IPv4 policy.
    • The presenter noted that this word could equally be applied to every policy document, and that people did not need to be reminded it was in development.
    • It was noted that the IPv6 policy was initially defined as interim, so it could be reviewed first and then the word could be removed.
    • The presenter argued that the word interim could be viewed negatively by people wanting to get IPv6.

    The Chair asked for a show of hands indicating support for the proposal. The Chair noted the proposal did not reach consensus and would be referred to the mailing list for further discussion.

    Action items

    • pol-23-001: Chair to refer proposal prop-043: Proposal to remove reference to IPv6 policy document as an "interim" policy document to mailing list for further discussion.

    Back to Contents

  7. prop-044: Proposal to remove requirement to document need for multiple /48s assigned to a single end site

    Jordi Palet, Consulintel

    This presentation argued that it is not reasonable to ask LIRs to justify their experience on a case by case basis. It was also argued that the current provisions are unnecessary and increase workload.

    Questions and discussion

    • It was asked if anyone in the room ran an LIR or if anyone in APNIC had this problem.
    • It was suggested that an LIR does have similar role to APNIC, and therefore should be able to make the decision.

    The Chair asked for a show of hands indicating support for the proposal. The Chair noted consensus was not reached and the proposal was abandoned.

    Back to Contents

  8. prop-045: Proposal to modify "end site" definition and alllow end sites to receive IPv6 allocations

    Jordi Palet, Consulintel

    This presentation argued that the definition of 'end site' should be broadened.

    Questions and discussion

    • It was noted that some universities already have IPv6 allocations. It was asked why some universities can get IPv6 and some can't.
    • The presenter suggested that APNIC has not yet allocated IPv6 to any universities. It was clarified that to date APNIC has not received an application from a university.
    • There was a comment that this was trying to solve a problem that did not exist. It was argued that it was incorrect to hypothesise that people will be afraid to apply for IPv6 for fear they will be refused.
    • It was suggested that the way the proposal is structured makes it cumbersome. It was suggested that the wording could be changed to 'allow IPv6 allocations to enterprise networks'.
    • It was suggested that building policy for policy's own sake is inefficient and these meetings should focus on real world problems.
    • It was argued that this proposal was an open-ended invitation to provide space to anyone. It was suggested that it may be more valid to come up with a solution to suit carriers who were already multihomed and did not meet the requirements. The presenter argued that this problem had already been solved, and that this was more about suiting those who changed carriers were forced to renumber.
    • There was a comment that IPv6 was supposed to fix this problem. The presenter responded IPv6 would not fix this problem, but facilitate its resolution.

    The Chair asked for a show of hands indicating support for the proposal. The Chair noted consensus not reached and the proposal was abandoned.

    Back to Contents

  9. Large IPv4 address space usage trial for future IPv6 deployment - phase 2

    Fukushima Nao, IPv6 Promotion Council of Japan

    This presentation provided an update on the large IPv4 address space usage trial for future IPv6 deployment.

    Back to Contents

  10. Evaluations of Growth-based Address Partitioning (GAP) algorithm with real data

    Mei Wang, Cisco and Tao Chen from CNNIC

    This presentation discussed alternative methods to allocate IPv6, focussing on GAP algorithms. The presenters also briefly outlined the sequential and bisection methods. The presenters covered the main problems dealt with in the project, such as the need to reduce fragmentation. The presenters also detailed performance results using real APNIC data and software developed to provide simulations of the allocation using GAP algorithms.
    The presenter concluded by outlining plans for future work on the project.

    Questions and discussion

    • The Chair suggested that the presenters send their presentation to the APNIC Secretariat.

    [Break 13:30 - 14:00]

    Back to Contents

  11. prop-046: IPv4 countdown policy proposal

    Toshiyuki Hosaka, JPNIC

    The presentation argued that the impending IPv4 exhaustion needed to be addressed in an orderly way, and that a policy was required to set out a plan leading up to exhaustion. The presentation details possible ways to do this. The presenter noted that this policy could not be implemented unless it was globally adopted.

    Questions and discussion

    • It was suggested that there should be some kind of member survey to find out how much of their allocation window was currently being used. It was suggested there should be a separate discussion on recycling and reclaiming addresses.
    • It was noted that this policy has been introduced to the ARIN community. Concern was expressed about liability and anti-trust implications. It was argued that legal personnel should scrutinise this proposal carefully before community adoption.
    • Concern was expressed that disputes might develop over the remaining stocks of IPv4 if they were held back. It was suggested that either this should not be done, or that the stocks be given away towards the end. It was suggested that holding back resources would encourage interference by government.
    • It was noted that the LACNIC region had concerns, namely that the rush was inevitable, and as each RIR had a different consumption rate, that LACNIC would not be able to access new /8s from IANA. Additionally, it was argued that members in some RIRs might have other ways to access the free pool in their internal RIR pool.
    • Clarification was sought on whether the proposal would go through the ICANN process. It was asked if the intent of the proposal was to ensure IANA was not able to allocate address space, or rather that RIRs should restrain their allocations.
    • The presenter clarified there was no intention to include IANA.
    • It was noted that the concept of fairness was multi-faceted, and a very big question with regard to diminishing resources. It was noted that it would have been good to start these discussions a decade ago, as getting this policy through in time now posed a practical problem.
    • It was noted that projected exhaustion figures were based on the assumption of business as usual. It was noted that scarcity is a strange phenomenon and impossible to model.
    • It was suggested that there was an incorrect assumption that people will move to IPv6. It was noted that there is no IPv6 to IPv6 translator. It was suggested that as IPv4 stocks diminished there would be heavy buying and selling of IPv4 and deployment of IPv4 NATs.
    • It was suggested that we may have more time due to the fact that unused addresses were being brought back into circulation.
    • It was noted that the historically dormant pool was currently being re-routed. It was noted that a year ago the equivalent of 50 /8s were unrouted, but now currently the figure was only 46. It was noted that it was almost impossible to know who originally owned these resources and why they came back.
    • It was suggested that RIRs could encourage rerouting in a variety of ways, including financial incentives. It was noted that this was a sensitive issue because of perceived unfair benefits for historical resource holders. It was suggested that this could be mitigated if it is done sooner rather than later, and that a policy should be looked at urgently.
    • It was asked if APNIC was going to have a shortage of space first. It was noted that under the current system, currently APNIC and RIPE were the busiest allocators (35% of global allocations). It was suspected that APNIC and RIPE would run out first, and that APNIC may run out a month or two earlier than RIPE.
    • The Chair asked the presenter if he would like to restate the proposal.
    • The presenter agreed he would like feedback and more discussion on each point rather than seeking consensus on the detail. The presenter broke down each point. After further clarification on each point, a decision was reached:
      1. Globally coordinated: reached consensus
      2. Define last date of allocation: did not reach consensus
      3. Some blocks to be kept in reserve: did not reach consensus
      4. Keep current policy framework regarding conservation: reached consensus
      5. Discuss recycling/marketisation in another proposal: reached consensus

    Action items

    • pol-23-003: Chair to refer prop-046: IPv4 countdown policy proposal to mailing list for further discussion.

    Back to Contents

  12. Resource management system WG update

    Shin Yamasaki, JPNIC

    This presentation discussed the outcomes of the Resource management system working group. The working group was specified to be in place from APNIC 22 until APNIC 23. There were 27 mailing list subscribers and 4 active participants. The presenter discussed recommendations that came out of the working group discussions. The presenter noted that it would be put to the mailing list as to whether to keep the group open.

    Back to Contents

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

    Terry Manderson, APNIC

    This presentation argued that email to update APNIC Registry and whois data was ineffective. The presenter noted the original proposal did not reach consensus at APNIC 22, and that the current proposal had been updated in consultation with the Resource management system working group.

    Questions and discussion

    • It was observed that tech-c and admin-c email addresses were being spammed. It was asked if the email addresses could be published as an image that could not be picked up by web crawlers.
    • It was clarified that the previous presentation called upon the Secretariat to consider developing gateway or interface tools to fulfil the working group's request prior to the deprecation of the email updates.
    • It was suggested that perhaps APNIC would create tools for migration as opposed to backwards compatibility.
    • It was suggested that the proposal be broken into two questions:
      1. Should the service be deprecated?

      2. Should there be a bridging mechanism to ensure continuity of the service for those who require it?
    • It was clarified that previously people were asked if interface was easy to use and reliable, and the response was very low.
    • The presenter rephrased his proposal into a single question.

    The Chair noted that consensus had not been reached and referred the proposal to the mailing list for further discussion.

    Action items

    • pol-23-004: Chair to refer prop-037: Deprecation of email updates for APNIC Registry and whois data to mailing list for further discussion.

    Back to Contents

  14. prop-047: eGLOP multicast address assignments

    Marshall Eubanks

    This presentation argued that multicast address assignments should be turned over to RIRs, and that eGLOP would enable this. More information is available in RFC 3180.

    Questions and discussion

    • It was noted that there was general improvement in multicast service requests being handled by IANA and that this would be presented at a later presentation.
    • It was asked if temporary transient conferencing using the semi random algorithms was OK. The presenter agreed, but noted that many entities wanted a permanent address to do this.
    • It was clarified that there was an RFC, and the IANA allocation procedures were clarified. It was noted that IANA do not make a judgement call on the quality of the request.
    • It was noted that there should be nothing wrong with the current system and it was asked why it would it be more difficult for a small company to do get a multicast address.
    • It was asked if the policy would need to be global between the RIRs. The presenter agreed that this would be expected to be a long process.

    Questions were cut short due to time constraints.

    Action items

    • pol-23-005: Marshall Eubanks to present prop-047: eGLOP multicast address assignments as a formal policy proposal at APNIC 24.

    Back to Contents

  15. Resource transfer and certification

    Geoff Huston, APNIC

    This presentation provided the latest update on APNIC's activities related to creating a resource certification framework. The main aim of the project is to validate 'right of use' for resources. Full details are provided in the presentation.

    As Kenny Huang was chairing the SIG for the last time, the Co-chair thanked him for his valuable contribution to the Policy SIG.

    Meeting closed: 18:00

    Minuted by: Tina Bramley

    Back to Contents

    16. Open action items:
    • 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.
      • Update: To be implemented in March 2007.
    • 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.
      • Update: To be implemented in March 2007.
    • pol-23-001: Chair to refer prop-042: Proposal to change IPv6 initial allocation criteria to mailing list for further discussion.
    • pol-23-002: Chair to refer proposal prop-043: Proposal to remove reference to IPv6 policy document as an "interim" policy document to mailing list for further discussion.
    • pol-23-003: Chair to refer prop-046: IPv4 countdown policy proposal to mailing list for further discussion.
    • pol-23-004: Chair to refer prop-037: Deprecation of email updates for APNIC Registry and whois data to mailing list for further discussion.
    • pol-23-005: Marshall Eubanks to present prop-047: eGLOP multicast address assignments as a formal policy proposal at APNIC 24.
Back to top