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 an amended ‘Provider Independent’ (PI) address assignment policy ASIA PACIFIC NETWORK INFORMATION CENTRE

Background w. CIDR promotes hierarchical addressing w. Through ‘Provider Aggregatable’ assignments w. PI assignments discouraged w. Requests for PI assignments w. For redundancy, resiliency and load sharing w. Due to lack of knowledge of CIDR w. Frequently small, usually multi-homed w. Routing table concerns w. Increase of 36% in routing table size in last 12 months w. Over 50% announcements comprise /24’s ASIA PACIFIC NETWORK INFORMATION CENTRE

Motivation w. APNIC current policy w. Assign PI to ‘Non-Member’ with one-time payment of US$8, 192 (formal) w. Assign PI through existing members without charge to both applicant and member (informal) w. No contract w. Inconsistent across membership w. APNIC needs a clearer policy framework when assigning Provider Independent (PI) addresses w. Issue raised at SIG in Korea w. No input but consensus for change, hence proposal ASIA PACIFIC NETWORK INFORMATION CENTRE

Current Status - Other RIRs w. RIPE NCC w. Assign PI to end-users only through members w. No contract w. Criteria: end-users must give reasons w. No minimum assignment size, no sub-assignments w. ARIN w. Assign PI to end-users directly w. Requestors sign ‘Registration Services’ contract w. Criteria: multi-homed and should have utilised a /21 and demonstrate need for /20 in next 3 months w. No sub-assignments ASIA PACIFIC NETWORK INFORMATION CENTRE

Discussion - Technical w. Type of connectivity? we. BGP mandatory criteria? w. Proposal: multi-homed (e. BGP) to different ISPs or ‘planning to multi-home’ w. Rationale: Promotes hierarchical routing w. Size of site? w. How large should the site be for a PI assignment? w. Proposal: ‘sufficiently large’ w 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 w. Rationale: Follows minimum practical allocation policy ASIA PACIFIC NETWORK INFORMATION CENTRE

Discussion - Administrative w. Contractual w. Proposal: To establish a contractual relationship with end user w. Rationale: Lack of contract makes it difficult to manage, need to provide in-addr and whois services w. Consistency w. Proposal: NIRs should implement same policies Assignments made by APNIC through NIRs. w. Rationale: APNIC and NIRs may have different policies leading to inconsistency across region ASIA PACIFIC NETWORK INFORMATION CENTRE

Discussion - Financial w. Consistency w. With fee structure for allocation of the same size (/20) w. One time fee with maintenance fees w‘Non-member’ income w. Subject to company taxation (estimated at 34%) w. Proposed w. Up to and including a /19 USD $ 2500 + 34% tax w> than a /19 and = a /16 USD $ 5000 + 34% tax w> than a /16 USD $10000 + 34% tax w. Admin fee $1000 and annual 10% maintenance fee ASIA PACIFIC NETWORK INFORMATION CENTRE

Summary and Recommendations w. New PI policy proposed w. Organisation should be multi-homed or plan to be within 3 months w. Have used a /21; or plan to use /21 in 3 months and a /20 in a year w. Pay the fee and the maintenance fees w. Sign a contract with APNIC w. Accept space from 202/7 w. No sub-assignments outside organisation w. Expectation to be routed as aggregate w. NIRs implement same policies through APNIC ASIA PACIFIC NETWORK INFORMATION CENTRE

Implementation w. Implementation date w 3 months from approval from membership w. Discontinue formal and informal PI policies w. APNIC to prepare documents w. PI contract w. Fee structure document w. Update forms and web-site w. Inform the community with mailing lists & web ASIA PACIFIC NETWORK INFORMATION CENTRE

Questions? ASIA PACIFIC NETWORK INFORMATION CENTRE