Transcript APNIC Open Address Policy Meeting Address Policy SIG October 26th, Brisbane ASIA PACIFIC NETWORK INFORMATION CENTRE.

APNIC Open Address Policy
Meeting
Address Policy SIG
October 26th, Brisbane
ASIA PACIFIC NETWORK
INFORMATION CENTRE
Proposal Definition
A proposal for an amended ‘Provider
Independent’ (PI) address assignment
policy
ASIA PACIFIC NETWORK
INFORMATION CENTRE
Background
CIDR promotes hierarchical addressing
Through ‘Provider Aggregatable’ assignments
PI assignments discouraged
Requests for PI assignments
For redundancy, resiliency and load sharing
Due to lack of knowledge of CIDR
Frequently small, usually multi-homed
Routing table concerns
Increase of 36% in routing table size in last 12 months
Over 50% announcements comprise /24’s
ASIA PACIFIC NETWORK
INFORMATION CENTRE
Motivation
APNIC current policy
Assign PI to ‘Non-Member’ with one-time payment
of US$8,192 (formal)
Assign PI through existing members without charge to
both applicant and member (informal)
No contract
Inconsistent across membership
APNIC needs a clearer policy framework when
assigning Provider Independent (PI) addresses
Issue raised at SIG in Korea
No input but consensus for change, hence proposal
ASIA PACIFIC NETWORK
INFORMATION CENTRE
Current Status - Other RIRs
RIPE NCC
Assign PI to end-users only through members
No contract
Criteria: end-users must give reasons
No minimum assignment size, no sub-assignments
ARIN
Assign PI to end-users directly
Requestors sign ‘Registration Services’ contract
Criteria: multi-homed and should have utilised a /21
and demonstrate need for /20 in next 3 months
No sub-assignments
ASIA PACIFIC NETWORK
INFORMATION CENTRE
Discussion - Technical
Type of connectivity?
eBGP mandatory criteria?
Proposal: multi-homed (eBGP) to different ISPs or
‘planning to multi-home’
Rationale: Promotes hierarchical routing
Size of site?
How large should the site be for a PI assignment?
Proposal: ‘sufficiently large’
Utilised a /21 from their upstream ISP or able to demonstrate they
plan to use a /21 in 3 months and a /20 in a year
Rationale: Follows minimum practical allocation policy
ASIA PACIFIC NETWORK
INFORMATION CENTRE
Discussion - Administrative
Contractual
Proposal: To establish a contractual relationship with
end user
Rationale: Lack of contract makes it difficult to
manage, need to provide in-addr and whois services
Consistency
Proposal: NIRs should implement same policies
Assignments made by APNIC through NIRs.
Rationale: APNIC and NIRs may have different
policies leading to inconsistency across region
ASIA PACIFIC NETWORK
INFORMATION CENTRE
Discussion - Financial
Consistency
With fee structure for allocation of the same size (/20)
One time fee with maintenance fees
‘Non-member’ income
Subject to company taxation (estimated at 34%)
Proposed
Up to and including a /19 USD $ 2500 + 34% tax
> than a /19 and = a /16
USD $ 5000 + 34% tax
> than a /16
USD $10000 + 34% tax
Admin fee $1000 and annual 10% maintenance fee
ASIA PACIFIC NETWORK
INFORMATION CENTRE
Summary and Recommendations
New PI policy proposed
Organisation should be multi-homed or plan to be
within 3 months
Have used a /21; or plan to use /21 in 3 months and a
/20 in a year
Pay the fee and the maintenance fees
Sign a contract with APNIC
Accept space from 202/7
No sub-assignments outside organisation
Expectation to be routed as aggregate
NIRs implement same policies through APNIC
ASIA PACIFIC NETWORK
INFORMATION CENTRE
Implementation
Implementation date
3 months from approval from membership
Discontinue formal and informal PI policies
APNIC to prepare documents
PI contract
Fee structure document
Update forms and web-site
Inform the community with mailing lists & web
ASIA PACIFIC NETWORK
INFORMATION CENTRE
Questions?
ASIA PACIFIC NETWORK
INFORMATION CENTRE