APNIC Open Address Policy Meeting Address Policy SIG

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

Proposal Definition w. A proposal for establishing minimum criteria for a first allocation of address space by APNIC ASIA PACIFIC NETWORK INFORMATION CENTRE

Background w. Allocations are hierarchical w. Topological address allocations critical to sustain Internet growth w. APNIC allocation policies required to support CIDR w. Open membership w. Membership and allocations are not coupled, but in practice, all members receive allocations w. No clear and well defined criteria for a first allocation currently exist w. Allocations are assumed to follow new membership ASIA PACIFIC NETWORK INFORMATION CENTRE

Motivation w. Effects w. Accelerates address consumption if organisation needs small amount of address space w. Does not promote hierarchy of CIDR if singly homed w. Some figures w 13% of ‘membership’ packages sent do not return (Sep) w. Could be reduced if members had clear criteria w. Criteria needed w. Well defined set of policies is needed to ensure consistent service, clarity and transparency ASIA PACIFIC NETWORK INFORMATION CENTRE

Current Status - APNIC w. Pre-membership questionnaire w. Requires outline of future network deployment plans w. Aimed at discouraging small and singly homed requestors w. September data w 35 requests for membership, 5 accepted without further queries, 22 supplied more information, 3 with requirements < /24, 5 were planning to use < /22 w. Iteration w. Between requestor and APNIC can be lengthy and very frustrating ASIA PACIFIC NETWORK INFORMATION CENTRE

Current Status - RIRs w. RIPE NCC w. Open membership policy w. No strictly defined criteria w. Try to discourage small, singly homed organisations w. ARIN w. Open membership not linked to resource allocations w. Registration Services Agreement for organisations requiring IP address space and not members w. Criteria - already used a /21 from your upstream and agree to renumber within 18 months ASIA PACIFIC NETWORK INFORMATION CENTRE

Discussion w. Allocation policy w. Necessary to promote routing hierarchy? w. If singly homed, go to upstream ISP? w Supports CIDR and scalable routing structure w. Acceptable for ISPs? w. What about Government barriers to multihoming? w. Efficiency - how large? w. Economic downturn shows signs of abating w. Regional characteristics show many ISPs are small w 73% of all APNIC members are in the ‘small’ category ASIA PACIFIC NETWORK INFORMATION CENTRE

Summary and Recommendation w. Proposal w. If already connected w. Multi-homed AND w. Used a /22 from upstream AND w. Have detailed plan for use of a /21 in a year w. If not yet connected w. Plan to be multi-homed within 3 months AND w. Have a detailed plan for use of /22 immediately (in 3 months) and /21 in one year w. Documentary evidence such as purchase receipts may be required ASIA PACIFIC NETWORK INFORMATION CENTRE

Implementation w 3 months after consensus w. APNIC to update all supporting documentation w Membership and request forms w Web and ftp site w. Inform community w. Web and mailing lists w. Work with NIRs to implement proposal w. Achieves consistent policy across region w. Schedule to be determined by NIRs ASIA PACIFIC NETWORK INFORMATION CENTRE

Questions? ASIA PACIFIC NETWORK INFORMATION CENTRE