![]() |
![]() |
You're here: Home » APNIC Open Policy Meetings |
APNIC Member Meeting Seoul, Korea, 3 March 2000APNIC Open Address policy MeetingDiscussion Paper: Provider Independent allocations, and special assignments for "essential" infrastructure(This document revised 11 February 2000) Problem DefinitionUnder what circumstances should APNIC make Provider Independent (PI) assignments? 1. BackgroundAPNIC is frequently approached by organisations, either directly or through existing members, which state that they need to obtain Provider Independent (PI) address space. In most cases the applicants require the PI block to address a conventional multihomed network, while in other cases, the applicants claim to require the address space for a piece of "essential infrastructure" (such as public exchange points, country code TLDs etc). APNIC currently makes PI assignments to end users in either of two ways: a) Through the non-member assignment policy, which is open to any applicant (and involves a one-time fee payment of USD8,192). b) Through a request submitted by a current APNIC member on behalf of the applicant (in which case there is no charge to the member or applicant). 2. MotivationAPNIC needs a clearer policy framework because there is a significant inconsistency between these two mechanisms for dealing with PI requests. 3. Current status (including other RIRs)APNIC RIPE NCC ARIN The issue of "micro-allocations" (that is, small PI assignments) has been recently discussed at an ARIN member meeting, and at the time of writing is due to be raised at a BOF at NANOG on 5-6 February. This document will be updated with the details of the discussion at the NANOG BOF as they become available. 4. DiscussionThis issue requires consideration on technical, administrative, and financial grounds. Technical considerations i) Does the type of site matter when considering a request for a PI assignment? If yes,
ii) Does the size of site matter? If yes,
iii) Does the type of connectivity matter?
Administrative considerations ii) Different NIRs have different policies - leading to a possible lack of consistency across region. iii) There is no formal relationship or contract with APNIC in the case of non-member resource assignments (though these may be defined within a Resource Lease framework in future). Financial considerations ii) Is the current charging model (using a very high fee of USD8,192 to discourage PI requests) adequate? 5. RecommendationsAPNIC is seeking feedback from the community in the development of a more consistent and equitable framework to address these issues. To assist in this it is useful to summarise the options: a) Allow the non-member policy and fee of USD8,192 ONLY; Of the above, APNIC would recommend that b) is discontinued: it is the weakest position as it leaves APNIC with no formal link to the requesting organisation but still required to provide services to them free of charge in the form of in-addr.arpa service and whois maintenance. |