Transcript

Wednesday, 26 August 2009, 16:00�17:30

SRINIVAS CHENDI: Good afternoon again. Welcome to the Policy SIG � Setting the Scene. The chairs for this session is Randy Bush, Ching�Heng Ku and Jian Zhang. Randy will start with the agenda.

RANDY BUSH: Hi, I'm Randy Bush from IIJ, Tokyo. This is the agenda. There's one minor thing is the open action items will be first. OK. So I'll do those. Then Jian Zhang will do the policy process. I'll do the proposals that are presented this week. And then we'll have a co�chair election. Everybody OK with the agenda? Feel free to speak, interrupt, etc...

OK. The open action items � thank you. These are things, decisions that have been made that required something from the Secretariat, the membership, etc. There are only two of them. The first is from policy 27 0 1. Pending approval and each stage of the process, APNIC Secretariat to implement proposal 50, IPv4 address transfers. Update proposal was returned to the policy SIG by the EC. There's a version five to be discussed today. The second one is policy 2702, pending approval of the policy process. In the global policy process. This is key because policy 27 was a globe approval required by all the RIRs because it was how things would be done globally. The IANA is to implement proposal 69, global proposal for V4 box to Internet registries. The proposal has been endorsed by the APNIC EC and it's awaiting approval in the other regions.

And that's it. I now get to find the next proposal. I'll set it up. OK.

The policy development process. And then we get to � oh, I see it. Yeah, yeah, yeah. OK.

Jian Zhang will present the policy development process F. You remove the safety card from the seat back in front of you, you'll find the policy development process right inside the front cover. So, if you like to read while hearing it and seeing it, there it is. The exit, two behind you, two in front of you. And floor lighting in case of an accident.

JIAN ZHANG: Good afternoon, everybody. I'm going to talk about policy development process, in case you don't know.

Our charter is to develop policies and the procedures which relate to the management and use of Internet address resources by APNIC, NIRs and ISPs within the Asia Pacific region.

The list is our mailing list address. I welcome everybody to join to add to the discussion list.

Our policy development process is open, transparent and bottom�up. It's open � that means anyone can propose a policy. Anyone can discuss policy proposals. Also there's a transparency because APNIC public documents all policy discussions and the decisions.

And it's bottom�up because community drives policy development. This chart actually shows our full process. Four weeks before APNIC meeting, somebody could submit proposal policy or amendment to APNIC secretary. And the SIG chair propose a proposals to SIG policy, to SIG mailing list. Then community starts to discuss proposal on the mailing list. Then during our one�week APNIC policy meeting, right now we're here, we're going to do the face�to�face discussion in the session. If we can reach the consensus, then we're going to report our decision to AMM. That will be on Friday. If there's no consensus reached, we're going to actually, we're going to go back, all the way back, to the mailing list, to do further discussion.

If there is a consensus reached on the AMM, we're going to do eight weeks continued discussion. That's going to be final call for public announcements on the mailing list. Then community will start to discuss proposal on the SIG mailing list and SIG chair proposes the outcome of SIG mailing list discussion.

If there's a consensus reached at that point, the proposal is going to be endorsed by our ECs. And then if there is a consensus there, we're going to do, then we're going to implement it. But that's going to be a minimum of three months period. At any point, if consensus couldn't be reached, we'll go back to mailing list for further discussion.

This picture shows a full circle of our policy development. So as I just mentioned, at the very beginning, others could propose a policy to APNIC secretary. That's going to be eight weeks before our open policy meeting. And the community start discussion on the mailing list. And community discuss a proposal face�to�face in the SIG session. That will be tomorrow's session, policy session. And SIG chair reports SIG decision to AMM on Friday. Then the community has the chance to reach any final objections during final call for public comments on SIG mailing list. And the SIG chair pose outcome of SIG mailing list discussion. Then our EC will endorse our decision.

And secretary is going to be, is going to implement proposal as policy. So, that's our policy development.

Remember, all proposals have been submitted with good intentions. But we may have different opinion but we all want the same thing � a strong and healthy Internet. So, please respect all other opinions. Play nice. Thank you.

APPLAUSE

RANDY BUSH: OK. I'm going to do an overview of the policy proposals. We're trying very hard to have this discussion today, so that we have tonight and tomorrow morning to discuss things, because we come from many cultures and many languages, so these are important subjects, so we're trying to give them space and time to be discussed. I'm going to review the proposals and just give a summary of what the policy committee chairs think the proposals mean and some history of the discussion.

There are currently seven proposals, proposal 50 transfers. 73 automatic allocation for IPv6 space. Proposal 74, the IANA policy for allocation of AS numbers. 75 � ensuring efficient use of historical AS numbers. 76 � requiring aggregation for IPv6 assignment. OK and, allocations. Proposal to supplement transfer policy of historical IPv4 addresses. And reserving /10 IPv4 address space to facilitate IPv6 deployment. Prop�050, you'll notice it's an old number. IPv4 address transfers. Current APNIC policies limit the registration of transfers to resources that are mergers and acquisitions of operational networks. If you wish to transfer address space, it must be part of a transfer of actually the assets of an organization.

We think there will continue to be a demand for v4 after the exhaustion and run out of the v4 free pool. There's a black market and trading now and this will only increase. This is bad for us as a community because it means the data we have about our resources that we're supposed to be stewards of will be bad. So the APNIC resource registry needs to accurately reflect current address distribution information. So this proposal proposes to allow transfers that are not attached to the sale of the company. You can just transfer the address space. There are restrictions, of course. One is the address block may not be have a prefix longer than /24. The second is that the seller and the buyer � use those terms � the source and the recipient organizations are both current APNIC members.

The source is not eligible for further address space for APNIC under the other policies for 12 months. Unless they can prove exceptional circumstances. OK, the recipient has to justify it just as they would any other allocation. And after we enter the final /8 period � in other words, when we've gotten the last /8 we're ever going to get from the IANA, that justification is no longer needed. They can just transfer.

The change is since APNIC 27 in Manila is version 5, listen to feedback from Manila. Final call for comments and 59 messages sent to the policy SIG mailing list in June and July. It removes the reference to historical address transfers because they're covered by existing policy. It removes the option of inter�RIR transfers. You will not be able to transfer to or from RIPE. And there is no clear mention of APNIC NIR transfers or transfers between NIRs because NIRs could implement this if they choose.

Version 1 was sent to the mailing list in July of 2007. Version 5 was sent in July of 2009. And the discussion on the mailing list of this version of version 5 is 11 posts from six people. The excitement has calmed down.

What's happening in the other registries? ARIN and RIPE have implemented transfer policies. AfriNIC has no similar policy and no proposal under discussion. LACNIC is discussing a transfer proposal � that's the number of it for IPv4 blocks within the LACNIC region.

Next proposal is 73. The automatic allocation assignment of IPv6. This proposal tries to address the problems that IPv4 addresses are being exhausted and in the community and & outside the community, the people in the Asia Pacific region, but don't participate in APNIC, there's still the perception it's hard to justify address requests from APNIC. Whether it's true or not is not the question. The fact is, it's perceived it is hard.

So, the proposed solution currently is that APNIC members that have a current v4 address, but know IPv6 space, can qualify for IPv6 space automatically if they get an IPv6 48, if they have an IPv4 assignment, and if they have an IPv4 allocation, they can get an IPv6 /32. This means they don't have to justify the need for these spaces. If they need more space, that's fine, they can justify it. This amount of space will be given to them automatically � not automatically � will be given to them without justification. They don't need to explain the need.

And, the Secretariat simplifies the process of IPv6 under this proposal. Make it very obvious to the world it's simple. If you have IPv4 space, just ask for IPv6, you will get it.

OK, the statistics version 1 was sent to the mailing list in early July. Version number in middle of August. Version 3 � five days later. The discussion on the mailing list for all three versions was 84 posts from 24 people.

In the other registries, similar proposals were raised in RIPE but withdrawn by the author. The RIPE proposal 2008 one said assign IPv6 space to every INET holder, and in 2008, assign IPv6 PA space to every LIR, whether they ask for it or not and why this really lost in RIPE was give it whether they asked or not. That was originally in the proposal year but the same discussion was had here and that was changed. So the current proposal is not nearly the same as the RIPE proposal that was withdrawn. RIPE Withdrew the proposals said that it was automatic whether you asked or not. That's no longer in this proposal. No other registry has a similar proposal.

prop�074 � IANA policy for the allocation of ASN blocks to registries. The problems this proposal's trying to solve are from the beginning of 2010, the current policy says that the RIRs cannot ask for separate 16 and 32�bit blocks from the IANA. Remember, these are ASN numbers. So it's 2�byte ASN, 4�byte ASN. RIRs today are still assigning 2�byte ASNs. Almost nobody is requesting 4�byte ASNs. All RIRs trying to want the ASNs won't qualify because they haven't allocated enough 32 bit ASNs. The members want the 2�byte ones and there are still 2�byte ones out there. The proposal to extend IANA's ability to allocate 2�byte ASN blocks to registries by one year. Stretch it for one more year.

This is a global policy proposal because it says how IANA allocates to the five RIRs. So, it must be adopted by all regions before it can be policy. It's been submitted to ARIN, LACNIC and RIPE and it will be submitted to AfriNIC.

It was first sent to the mailing list in the middle of July this year. Nine posts have been made by six people.

The other � we just said this.

Prop�075 � ensuring efficient use of historical AS numbers. The problems this is meant to address are the 2�bit ASNs are reaching exhaustion. We're running out of room. Many networks are not prepared for 4�bit ASNs.

This sounds like IPv6, doesn't it? APNIC can reclaim unused ASN numbers assigned under current policies but there's no equivalent � we can reclaim the ones that were assigned by APNIC but there's no equivalent for historical AS numbers, the AS numbers that were given away before APNIC existed.

The proposed solution is to permit APNIC to reclaim unused AS numbers from the historical pool that comes from before APNIC was allocating.

If an organization with unused AS numbers wishes to hold on to the AS number, APNIC will not reclaim it. It's just getting the stuff that nobody seems to want. After a period of time, reclaimed AS numbers can be reassigned. This is not an aggressive, "We're going to take it away from you policy", this is, "We can't find you, we can't find you using it. We're going to hold it on to for a while to see if you scream. If you scream, we'll give it back to you."

The proposal was sent to the mailing list in July 24, three posts from three people. No similar proposal for historical AS numbers has been raised in any of the other regions.

Prop�076 requiring aggregation for subsequent IPv6 allocations. The problems this proposal aims to speak is aggregation currently is currently required for initial IPv6 allocations. You must say you're going to aggregate. But no such requirement is there for subsequent allocations. You come back for more, there's no requirement for aggregation. Therefore, there's a risk of deaggregation.

It's proposed the LIR must agree to allocate any subsequent IPv6 allocation they receive by APNIC. The mailing list, the end of July, nine posts from eight people.

LACNIC is discussing changing their initial allocation requirements � that the prefix be announced with a minimum possible level of aggregation. I think you mean the minimum level of disaggregation. Currently this has to be a single proposal. RIPE is discussing the opposite. Removing for initial allocation. Removing routing requirements from the IPv6 address allocation policy.

What we see here, by the way, is LACNIC is trying to say aggregation is good and we should push on it. And what RIPE is saying, "We're not supposed to talk about routing, that's up to the ISPs." AfriNIC and ARIN have initial IPv6 allocation criteria that require a plan to aggregate with no requirement for a second and third � I'm sorry � Cathy.

CATHY ARONSON: I'm from ARIN. I just want to let you know that we have a policy on proposal on ARIN right now to remove the 200 and to remove the initial aggregation requirement for the initial.

RANDY BUSH: A policy proposal in the ARIN region that would remove the requirement for allocation, for aggregation. And this is for similar reasons as RIPE? OK. Sorry, I had the slide slightly wrong.

OK, prop�077 is another transfer proposal. It's to supplement 50 and it's to talk about historical IPv4 addresses. The problem is historical IPv4 transfer policy was designed to encourage address holders with no relationship with APNIC, they're not members, to bring their historical resources in to the current policy framework and become members. Carry the resources in and become APNIC members. The proposal for transfer of current space and allocations direct from APNIC requires justification. So if we want them to come in, why are we making it harder?

OK, the proposal is, people holding historical old addresses from before the APNIC. They want to transfer it. They need to justify those resources according to prop�050 justification criteria if prop�050 is adopted. The prop�050 is not adopted, then people wishing to transfer historical address space must meet the existing IPv4 allocation criteria for APNIC members.

Sent a mailing list at the end of July � 11 posts from five people. In the other RIRs � whoa � read the proposal. In the text it says what's going on in the other RIRs, how they propose to deal with historical address space and transfer, etc... It's not something I can put on here. Prop�078 � reserving a /10 of IPv4 address space to promote IPv6 deployment. There's a fear that allocations from the last /8 we get from the IANA might be used to expand IPv4 networks and not to prepare for IPv6 transition. This proposes reserving a /10 from that last /8 under proposals prop�050 and prop�060, for networks within an immediate plan for IPv6.

So it's to reserve a /10, give away 24s. If they have an immediate plan for /6, they can get more than one within the /10 but only one a year. And networks are still eligible to get a second separate allocation under prop�060, the final /8 policy, which only allows one for any member.

OK, we sent to the mailing list at the end of July � nine posts from five people.

ARIN has a similar policy. It's dedicated IPv4 prop for IPv6 deployment. RIPE has a policy under discussion � 2009 � 4, allocation assignment to facilitate IPv6 deployment. AfriNIC and LACNIC currently have no similar policies or proposals. I would note somewhat what's going on in the other registries is catching up to our proposal 60, which, if you remember, takes the last /8, reserves a 16th of it for future contingencies � we don't know � and takes the rest and chops it up in to very small pieces.

I believe that's all we have. Tomorrow we will go through the mail in detail and discuss them. The idea of going through this today is so that you get a chance to discuss and think about them, etc. If you've got questions, questions are always good. I thought we have one then.

OK. So no questions? We don't have slides? The last thing we do is there's a co�chair position. Jian is retiring. She's on EC now. So we have called for volunteers for the SIG chair, co�chair position. And at least, I go to the website and find the list.

These four people have volunteered. Andy Linton, Skeeve Stevens, Masato Yamanishi and Terence Zhang. I hope we have time to hear from them. We do. OK. So, could I ask for these four people to come up and speak a little? And maybe tell us what you do in the real world? Pardon? You're trying to say there's a nominee statement? Here you go, Andy? Your experience in the APNIC and policy would be very helpful. So, you know.

ANDY LINTON: I'm not going to read the statement to you because I know you can read it just as well as I can.

I've been involved as, involved in Internet activities since the early 1980s when I worked at a university in the UK. And I have had lots of experience going on over the last 25, 26 years. I was involved in the early part of the APNIC process when David Conrad first set�up APNIC. APNIC was David Conrad and that was just about it, in Tokyo. There were a number of people who David used as a sounding board on the mailing list. I suppose in a sense those were the first APNIC meetings because David would say, "If I do this, do you think it's a silly thing?" So I was involved there. I've been involved in registry and registrar�type activities. I was working at AARNET in Australia. Subsequently, I moved back to New Zealand where I have been involved in the rolling out of the .NZ domain name.

And I'm on the board of the company that looks after the policy for the .NZ. I also served as a director on PIR which manages the domain.

I think I've got quite a strong grasp of the policy issues. I won't call them political, but the policy issues. I also have a very strong grasp of technical stuff. I've worked in ISPs and telcos. I've been at the bottom end of this where the rubber hits the road and where things have to happen. So I think I've got a broad sort of set of experience there both in terms of the length of time I've been involved and in the length of experience I've got. I'd appreciate your support. I'll do my very best to work with the other co�chairs to see that we get good decisions and decisions we all feel comfortable with and can live with. And we're pleased to be able to stand and there are some good candidates as well. But I think you should vote for me in this one.

APPLAUSE

RANDY BUSH: Thank you, Skeeve. Masato Yamanishi?

MASATO YAMANISHI: I think you can catch up my experience from nominee statement, so let me explain what you can expect from me in chairing.

I think the policy discussion in AP region is quite unique and two points. The first point is that half the people is native English speaker, while the other non�native English speaker, regarding this point, I'm not a native English speaker, but I'm used to English discussion, but I believe I can help better and smart communication in this discussion.

Second point is that NIR and LIR has no member co�exist in this discussion. Regarding this point, I can hold better discussion respecting each position because I'm working in dialect with APNIC member, while I come from Japan. Japan has JPNIC, so I can gather useful comment from NIR member and also from under JPNIC. So these are, these are, you can expect from me. Thank you very much.

APPLAUSE

RANDY BUSH: Thank you. Terence Zhang?

TERENCE ZHANG: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I work for CNNIC. I've been working on policy since I joined CNNIC. I have actively participated in APNIC things and mailing list discussion and I have good understanding of the policy development process in APNIC. Before working for CNNIC, I was a network consultant and I work as a networking specialist for IBM and I have participated in the network design and operations of server, Internet, server providers in both China and the US.

I believe my experience in the Internet industry can make valuable contribution to our community and the policy development process. I hope to have your support and I will certainly serve this position to the best of my ability. Thank you very much.

APPLAUSE

RANDY BUSH: Thanks, Terence. OK. APNIC people have a way of counting. Thank you. Why don't we just take it in order? This is, by the way, one of the few times the policy SIG actually votes. So those people who support Andy Linton for co�chair, please raise your hands. Keep them up. The ladies have to count and agree on the count. That's why it's done by women. If it were boys, they'd never agree. Thank you.

For Skeeve Stevens, please. People who support Skeeve Stevens? Thank you.

People who support Masato Yamanishi? Please raise your hands clearly. It's hard for people up here to count.

People who support Terence Zhang? Thank you. May I have the envelope, please?

I don't need to read the counts. My sympathies to Terence Zhang. He's been elected.

APPLAUSE

That's it for the Policy SIG. We have some small procedural matters that I think Philip and Srinivas Chendi will cover. Does anybody have, we're running well on time. We're very comfortable. Does anybody have any questions about policy issues that we will be discussing tomorrow? If you don't want to stand up now but you still have questions, feel free to ask any of us, any of the proposals, anybody, please discuss these things this evening. Tomorrow morning, etc. Thank you very much.

SRINIVAS CHENDI: Thank you, very much. Would you like to say something? We have a voting BOF followed by this session. I'm waiting for the chair to come in to the room. I have more details about tonight's social event. It looks very exciting. There's a 20�30 minute tour and we have a lot of prizes to give away. The sponsors will come and give away those prizes. So if you like to attend the tour, please board the first bus at 6:30pm, and the last one is at 7 o'clock for people staying to vote on the voting BoF. Thank you. OK. I was indicating in five more minutes the voting BoF will begin. 5pm. Sorry, it starts at 5pm.

Any questions? We still have 15 minutes. Anyone want to know how the policy development process works?

RANDY BUSH: I want to thank Jian for serving, by the way.

APPLAUSE

PHILIP SMITH: Lightning Talks, if anybody has a 10�minute or less presentation they want to give � 5 o'clock tomorrow is when the Lightning Talks happen, or 5:30. So please send in your proposals to program.apnic.net. There's not much time left. We've got good offers already, we could do with a couple more. So please get your offers in ASAP. Thank you. Thanks.

SRINIVAS CHENDI: If you wish to walk out, have a coffee and come back. By that time the guys will be here for the next session or you can stay here and catch up with your emails. Thank you.