[sig-policy] Re: New version: prop-154: Resizing of IPv4 assignment for the IXPs
Hi, It's regular contribution from JPOPF Steering Team to summarize the discussion there with regard to the current policy proposals up for the forthcoming policy-sig on-site discussion. I am writing this message since we had an increased interest for Address Policy in NIRs and to put spotlight on his messages as an NIR policy forum's effort to reach out in-country community to discuss policy proposals in APNIC policy-sig, which is in order to maintain policies in APNIC and JPNIC consistent. Another point worth your interest would be that it is not a voice from a single person but a discussion summary out of Japanese Policy Forum, although not so many people involved in the discussion. Thank you Tsurumaki-san and colleagues at JPOPF ST for this regular contribution. Thank you, MAEMURA Akinori, JPNIC On 2024/02/07 18:03, Satoru Tsurumaki wrote: Dear Colleagues, I am Satoru Tsurumaki from Japan Open Policy Forum Steering Team.. I would like to share key feedback in our community for prop-154,based on a meeting we organised on 31th Jan to discuss these proposals. This feedback is sent on my behalf, but please note that it is a summary of the discussions among the 12 Japanese community members (5 on-site, 7 remote) who attended the meeting. Many oppose opinions were expressed about this proposal. In particular, many participants share the view that the IPv4 address savings to be gained from this proposal are not worth the effort related to renumbering that many IXP stakeholders will have to bear. (comment details) - The number of IPv4 addresses that are expected to be saved by this proposal should be indicated in detail. - It was pointed out in APNIC 56 that the effort related to renumbering is very burdensome for IXP and IXP's customers, and I oppose this proposal because it is not considered about it at all in this proposal. Regards, 2023年9月9日(土) 8:07 Shaila Sharmin : Dear SIG members, A new version of the proposal "prop-154: Resizing of IPv4 assignment for the IXPs" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review. Information about earlier versions is available from: http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-154 You are encouraged to express your views on the proposal: - Do you support or oppose the proposal? - Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear? - What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more effective? Please find the text of the proposal below. Regards, Bertrand, Shaila, and Anupam APNIC Policy SIG Chairs --- prop-154-v002: Resizing of IPv4 assignment for the IXPs Proposer: Simon Sohel Baroi (sba...@gmail.com) Aftab Siddiqui 1. Problem statement According to APNIC Internet Number Resource Policies ( Ref – APNIC-127, Dated: 22 DEC, 2022 ), an Internet Exchange Point ( IXP ) is eligible to receive a maximum /23 of IPv4 and /48 of IPv6 resources. Usually APNIC assign one /24 to start a new IXP. But from analysis through PeeringDB, we found most of places the resources have been underutilized and new IXPs are wasting a large amount of valuable IPv4 space. On the other side there are large IXP, who can’t grow due to lack of IP resources, where /23 is not enough as the membership size is big. The size of the minimum and maximum range of IP delegation to new or existing IXPs is the main problem in the current policy. Present IXP Status in APAC region from PeeringDB [5] : +---+---++---+---+ | IX Names | Peers | Vs | Peers | IX Names | +---+---+ +---+---+ | BBIX Tokyo| 299 || 17 | BBIX-Thailand | +---+---+ +---+---+ | JPIX TOKYO| 257 || 3 | MekongIX | +---+---+ +---+---+ | Equinix Tokyo | 131 || 2 | Equinix Mumbai| +---+---+ +---+---+ | JPNAP Tokyo | 211 || 13 | npIX JWL | +---+---+ +---+---+ | HKIX | 296 || 3 | Vanuatu Internet Exchange | +---+---+ +---+---+ | Equinix Hong Kong | 216 || 4 | MyNAP | +---+---+ +---+---+ | Equinix Singapore | 422 || 25 | DE-CIX Kuala Lumpur | +---+---+ +---+---+ | IIX-Jakarta | 449 || 13 | IIX-Lampung | +---+---+ +---+---+ |
[sig-policy] Re: New proposal: prop-158-v001: IPv6 auto-allocation for each IPv4 request
Dear Mike and Fernando, Mike: I have been under the impression that the APNIC NIRs must adhere to APNIC policies but could create their own policies if they don’t contradict those of APNIC. Yes. Please notice the policy proposals in APNIC sig-policy often have the section of "applicability in NIR" (sorry no phrase in my crappy memory) and there are cases where NIRs have some room for localizing it. It's due to some reasons. In JPNIC case we have our own registry system and the policies which require additional implementation at the registry system often need some treatment like allowance for the local implementation. For the transfer, APNIC doesn't force NIRs to allow transfer, but it was under the discretion of NIR to allow it or now and that isn't recognized to contradict APNIC policy. Moreover, from a bit different angle, If an NIR only can implement APNIC policy, how local community can propose a policy they want? It sounds like the local people still need to propose it to APNIC sig-policy? So in case of Japan we have a local policy forum where community members can propose something to the existing policies and established the mechanism to keep consistency between local forum and sig-policy - proposals in local forum, if once got consensus, will be brought to sig-policy, a new policy proposals in sig-policy will be introduced in the local to measure temperature and being reported back to sig-policy and consensus policy in sig-policy will be simply reviewed in the local for implementation at JPNIC. Hope these help you. I wonder why NIR got such a big spot light, but I am happy to explain further. I think we with local policy forum leaders do the right things. Thank you, Akinori On 2024/01/25 1:00, Mike Burns wrote: In the past I have had problems with the transfer policies of APNIC NIRs not matching APNIC’s own transfer policies. When those differences prevented a transfer I asked APNIC to intervene by imposing the (governing, to my mind) APNIC transfer policies on the recalcitrant NIR. And that was effective but maybe it didn’t settle the issue, which I think should be clear to all. I believe that there is a hierarchy in which the topmost organizations delegate some specified roles to subsidiary organizations via some document like a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). It would be such a document that spells out whether policies must match, or if they mismatch which is controlling. I have been under the impression that the APNIC NIRs must adhere to APNIC policies but could create their own policies if they don’t contradict those of APNIC. I hope somebody can clear it up. Regards, Mike *From:* Fernando Frediani *Sent:* Wednesday, January 24, 2024 10:25 AM *To:* sig-policy *Subject:* [sig-policy] Re: New proposal: prop-158-v001: IPv6 auto-allocation for each IPv4 request To resume my initial point there is no point in allowing NIRs to develop and have specific policies, complicate and confuse things unecessarily. Policies developed by the entire RIR community is more than enough in order to regulate how IP addreess assignment is conducted as in all.other RIRs worldwide. NIRs may well continue to exist and perform their administrative functions under the umbrella of the RIR facilitating things in certain economies and cultures. Best regards Fernando On Wed, 24 Jan 2024, 11:47 Fernando Frediani, wrote: Hi On Wed, 24 Jan 2024, 07:39 David Conrad, wrote: Fernando, On Jan 24, 2024, at 4:19 AM, Fernando Frediani wrote: > No government should ever be able to mandate anything related to policy development and how they apply to IP space assignment and use. I’m actually curious: why do you believe you (or the RIRs) are able to tell governments what they can or cannot mandate? I think you are not following this discussion and trying to speak about soemthing different from what is being discussed. I mentioned several times the diference between policies and administrative and legal obligations and you simplify very much the question. No government is able in practice to determinate what should be the policies for IP address assignment anywhere. Don't confuse it with mandate legal obligations within a certain jurisdiction. > NIRs are never meant to be "mini-RIRs"or something in that line. I’m unsure what you mean by this. Simply, NIRs were (and are, as far as I know) intended to provide Internet registration services for entities within their economy. Overarching guidelines for the policies by which those service are provided are defined within the Internet numbers registry system (see RFC 7020) but those guidelines do not carry the force of law: they require the voluntary cooperation of the parties involved to be effective. Maybe your conception about NIRs may
[sig-policy] Re: New proposal: prop-158-v001: IPv6 auto-allocation for each IPv4 request
Chiristopher, Fernando et al, I am an employee of the entity which runs an NIR. Let me clarify on some points which have appeared in this thread. 1) an NIR needs to enter into "APNIC and NIR Member Relationship Agreement" and needs to comply with it. Its article 3.2-e stipulates "Enter into a formal membership agreement or other suitable contractual arrangement with its own members or account holders who receive Internet resources from the NIR Member, requiring such members or account holders to comply with resource and address management policies which are consistent, and not in conflict, with APNIC Address Management Policies, and to take all reasonable steps to enforce compliance with such agreement or arrangement;" therefore, the NIR's policy should be consistent and not in conflict with APNIC's one. 2) This doesn't mean "NIR shouldn't think about its own policy" but "NIR can think about its own policy if it be consistent and not in conflict with APNIC's one". Some NIRs predate APNIC as David pointed out, some has additional constraint by national law and there may be local circumstances, which may require a bit different setup domestically. 3) In JPNIC case we had elaborated our own policy process to have an independent community process to develop JPNIC's IP address policy and established the mechanism to develop policies which the local community wants and at the same time which are consistent with APNIC's one. It was presented by Mr NAKAGAWA Akira, Chair of Japan's forum, in APNIC56 in Kyoto. https://conference.apnic.net/56/assets/files/APJS642/ip-address-as-commun_1694574856.pdf Maybe it's beyond your imagination, but we are doing our policy process with consistency with APNIC's one well taken into account. If you had any unclear point, I will try to answer as far as I can. Hope it helps, Akinori On 2024/01/24 8:49, Christopher Hawker wrote: They play a important administrative role in certain places and economies, but that doesn't mean they should be allowed to develop policies. I disagree. As David has identified, NIRs may in some cases may have legal mandates set by the governments of their economies relating to the management of address space which may not be relevant to other economies. In these circumstances it would be appropriate for these NIRs to set these policies at an economy level, rather than that of a regional level. Further, some NIR policies may be defined as a means to better serve their communities whereas they could be detrimental to others (not saying that they would). Allowing this to happen open doors to unnecessary discrepancies, bureaucracy and sometimes unfairness within the same RIR region which should not exist. Again, I disagree. NIRs that fall under APNIC are seen and treated as regular APNIC members and any relationship between an LIR and an NIR is exactly that - between them. Network operators within NIR service regions are welcome to choose whether to obtain resources directly from APNIC or their NIR and can move their holdings between the two. I don't see how this would open doors to bureaucracy and unfairness, rather it is a transparent process. I just found really strange when you write a proposal in APNIC having to specify in the text if that policy is to be apply also to the NIRs. This type of things should never be necessary. To my knowledge, you do not need to expressly state whether a policy applies at an RIR level only or must apply to members of NIRs as well. An NIR is permitted to define their own policies, however, under APNIC's policies any policy defined by an NIR must not conflict with an APNIC policy. By ICANN ICP-2 that estabilish the criteria for new RIRs and process of Policy Development and don't say a word about NIRs. The ICP-2 process does not cover the establishment of NIRs, therefore ICP-2 is irrelevant in their discussion. Should the NIR wish to convert to becoming an RIR then yes, ICP-2 would then apply. Since any resources are allocated to RIRs and than to NIRs they must always be submit to the policies developed solely by that RIR community and that is quiet reasonable. As NIRs within the APNIC service region are members of APNIC themselves, yes, they are subject to the policies as defined by APNIC and its members through the PDP. NIRs have special agreements and MoUs in place that allow and afford them other roles, responsibilities and functions. Again, one thing are specific administrative specificity that may be required in certain countries and jurisdictions and another are the policies that are developed by the community of that RIR in a bottom-up process. If I interpreted that correctly, you said that it's one thing for an NIR to define a policy that is legally mandated, but it's another thing for an RIR to define a policy using a bottom-up approach. If that is correct, the two canno
Re: [sig-policy] Resignation from Policy-SIG Chair Position
Thank you Sumon for your excellent service as Policy SIG Chair for years! I don't think you don't necessarily need to step down from the Chair position in the reason of your assumption to the EC (correct me if wrong, anyone), but I will respect your decision and it is indeed great of you to pass the leadership position to another person. See you next time! Best, Akinori On 2020/03/06 12:21, Sumon Ahmed Sabir wrote: Dear Community Members, As you may already know that I have been elected as APNIC EC Member in the last members meeting, I am now resigning from Policy SIG Chair Position. Soon there will be announcement from the secretariat about acting SIG Chair and subsequent election process. I would like to thank everyone for your excellent support and participation in Policy Development Process. My special thanks to secretariat staffs involved in Policy SIG Adams, Sunny and George and my fellow Co-Chairs Bertrand and Ching-Heng for their amazing support. It was a great pleasure to serve the community as SIG Chair. Sincerely, Sumon * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * ___ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * ___ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
