subject:"\[sig\-policy\] Re\: New version\: prop\-154\: Resizing of IPv4 assignment for the IXPs"

[sig-policy] Re: New version: prop-154: Resizing of IPv4 assignment for the IXPs

2024-02-07 Thread MAEMURA Akinori


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   |
+---+---+ +---+---+
| DECIX-Mumbai  |  446  |

[sig-policy] Re: New version: prop-154: Resizing of IPv4 assignment for the IXPs

2024-02-07 Thread Satoru Tsurumaki

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   |
> +---+---+ +---+---+
> | DECIX-Mumbai  |  446  ||   14  | Decix
> Kolkata |
> +---+---+ +---+---+
> | MegaIX Sydney |  232  ||   46  | EdgeIX -
> Melbourne|
> +---+---++---+---+
>
>
> 2. Objective of policy change
> -
> The objective of this proposal is to modify the default size of IPv4
> assignments for IXPs from up to /23 to /26, which can receive a
> replacement up to a maximum of a /22, provided the IXP returns the IPv4
> address space previously assigned to them.
>
> 3. Situation in other regions
> -
> Similar policy has been adopted by RIPE NCC ( ripe-733 :  IPv4

[sig-policy] Re: New version: prop-154: Resizing of IPv4 assignment for the IXPs

2023-09-13 Thread Sanjeev Gupta

I did a quick search on my router, and I see:

sanjeev@P14W11:/mnt/c/Users/sanje/Desktop$ grep -e '/2[789]' someroutes.txt
| sort | uniq
   DAb   1.6.73.96/27   103.241.63.130   20
   DAb   12.229.60.8/29 210.23.3.65  20
   DAb + 1.6.1.64/27103.241.63.130   20
   DAb + 1.6.140.80/28  103.241.63.130   20
   DAb + 1.6.148.0/28   103.241.63.130   20
   DAb + 1.6.19.224/27  103.241.63.130   20
   DAb + 1.6.195.176/28 103.241.63.130   20
   DAb + 1.6.195.96/28  103.241.63.130   20
   DAb + 1.6.2.160/27   103.241.63.130   20
   DAb + 1.6.215.144/28 103.241.63.130   20
   DAb + 1.6.215.160/28 103.241.63.130   20
   DAb + 1.6.23.224/27  103.241.63.130   20
   DAb + 1.6.4.192/27   103.241.63.130   20
   DAb + 1.6.67.160/28  103.241.63.130   20
   DAb + 1.6.70.48/28   103.241.63.130   20
   DAb + 1.6.75.128/27  103.241.63.130   20
   DAb + 1.6.75.64/27   103.241.63.130   20
   DAb + 1.6.8.16/28103.241.63.130   20
   DAb + 1.6.8.224/27   103.241.63.130   20
   DAb + 1.6.9.16/28103.241.63.130   20
   DAb + 1.7.143.160/28 103.241.63.130   20
   DAb + 1.7.177.16/28  103.241.63.130   20
   DAb + 1.7.177.32/28  103.241.63.130   20
   DAb + 1.7.179.160/28 103.241.63.130   20
   DAb + 1.7.188.160/28 103.241.63.130   20
   DAb + 1.7.193.0/27   103.241.63.130   20
   DAb + 1.7.193.160/27 103.241.63.130   20
   DAb + 1.7.196.0/27   103.241.63.130   20
   DAb + 1.7.196.224/27 103.241.63.130   20
   DAb + 1.7.197.0/27   103.241.63.130   20
   DAb + 1.7.224.64/28  103.241.63.130   20

So, as a new IX (current 20, planned 50 peers), I have 2 choices with the
new policy:

   1. I come in as a new, normal, Member.  I get a /24 (to save costs).  I
   announce the lower /25 for my looking glass, etc, and the upper /25 for my
   Peering LAN.
   2. Or, under the new policy, I get a /26 for my LAN, and apply for a /24
   (the minimum) for my public resources.

So the new policy makes it MORE expensive for me to tell APNIC I am an IX.
Plus my fear that I might start doing well, and need to renumber (or I can
tell people, sorry, the IX is full, please wait till someone leaves).

Under option 1, if I grow, I get another /24, move my LG and www, and
expand the peering LAN.  Or I save significant money, I announce the LOWER
/28 (my LG), and expand the Peering LAN to the full /24.

Under option 2, I need to renumber.

So tell me (I asked last week): when you say:

> 5. Advantages
> This proposal will ensure rapid expansion of IXPs in terms of membership
> and POP numbers for this region

what do you mean?  You specifically force pain onto me every time I wish to
expand, and you rub it in by saying you are encouraging "rapid expansion"

(This is apart from my general background opposition to special cases and
tinkering.  Please, let v4 changes die.  Let Sunny and Chimi finish handing
out what they have, to whomever applies, and let us move on)

-- 
Sanjeev Gupta
+65 98551208   http://sg.linkedin.com/in/ghane

On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 7:11 PM Sanjeev Gupta  wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 5:42 PM Aftab Siddiqui 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Jahangir,
>> Peering lan should never be on the global routing table whether you
>> support this policy or not. Even the peering lan of existing IXP are not
>> advertised to global routing table.
>>
>
> Aftab, so for my new IX, I will get a /26 for the LAN (I have 10 members),
> and a /24  (or /23) (because I am a member)?  After all, I need global
> reachability for my lg, my portal, my member page  How does this help
> conserve resources?
>
> Why not give me a /24, and let me handle what I need, etc?  Despite
> repeated wisdom, /25 (with a Route Object, and IRR) is as visible as a /24
> in general.
>
> My concern remains: why are IXs a special case at all?  As Vivek
> responded, it is not like we have a separate pool for them anyway.  Why
> treat them special?
>
> Now, if you were proposing that an IX (to be encouraged) should be able to
> request a /18 (!), now that might *encourage* IXs.  But again, someone this
> large is likely to be commercial, they can afford to spend the money to buy
> (dare I say "lease" a /18).
>
>
>
___
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-le...@lists.apnic.net

[sig-policy] Re: New version: prop-154: Resizing of IPv4 assignment for the IXPs

2023-09-13 Thread Sanjeev Gupta

On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 5:42 PM Aftab Siddiqui 
wrote:

> Hi Jahangir,
> Peering lan should never be on the global routing table whether you
> support this policy or not. Even the peering lan of existing IXP are not
> advertised to global routing table.
>

Aftab, so for my new IX, I will get a /26 for the LAN (I have 10 members),
and a /24  (or /23) (because I am a member)?  After all, I need global
reachability for my lg, my portal, my member page  How does this help
conserve resources?

Why not give me a /24, and let me handle what I need, etc?  Despite
repeated wisdom, /25 (with a Route Object, and IRR) is as visible as a /24
in general.

My concern remains: why are IXs a special case at all?  As Vivek responded,
it is not like we have a separate pool for them anyway.  Why treat them
special?

Now, if you were proposing that an IX (to be encouraged) should be able to
request a /18 (!), now that might *encourage* IXs.  But again, someone this
large is likely to be commercial, they can afford to spend the money to buy
(dare I say "lease" a /18).
___
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-le...@lists.apnic.net

[sig-policy] Re: New version: prop-154: Resizing of IPv4 assignment for the IXPs

2023-09-13 Thread Jahangir Hossain

Hi Aftab,
I understand your point.
My concern is, how do these new/small IXPs announce their hosted content
(LAN) to global routing as they are receiving /26 at the first stage? We
should consider this situation.


Regards /
Jahangir Hossain





On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 3:42 PM Aftab Siddiqui 
wrote:

> Hi Jahangir,
> Peering lan should never be on the global routing table whether you
> support this policy or not. Even the peering lan of existing IXP are not
> advertised to global routing table.
>
> On Wed, 13 Sep 2023 at 6:14 pm, Jahangir Hossain 
> wrote:
>
>> I also remain opposed to this proposal and inessential.
>>
>> if a new IXP is required to announce some content  to global routing then
>> how does this new IXP announce this block /26?
>>
>> Regards /
>> Jahangir Hossain
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Sep 9, 2023 at 5:06 AM Shaila Sharmin <
>> shaila.sharmin@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> 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   |
>>> +---+---+ +---+---+
>>> | DECIX-Mumbai  |  446  ||   14  | Decix
>>> Kolkata |
>>> +---+---+ +---+---+
>>> | MegaIX Sydney |  232  ||   46  | EdgeIX -
>>> Melbourne|
>>> +---+---++---+--
>>> -+
>>>
>>>
>>> 2. Objective of policy change
>>> -
>>> The objective of this proposal is to modify the default size of IPv4
>>> assignments for IXPs from up to /23 to /26, which can receive a
>>> replacement up to a maximum of a /22, provided the IXP returns the IPv4
>>> address space previously assigned to them.
>>>
>>> 3. Situation in other regions
>>> -
>>> Similar

[sig-policy] Re: New version: prop-154: Resizing of IPv4 assignment for the IXPs

2023-09-13 Thread Jahangir Hossain

I also remain opposed to this proposal and inessential.

if a new IXP is required to announce some content  to global routing then
how does this new IXP announce this block /26?

Regards /
Jahangir Hossain






On Sat, Sep 9, 2023 at 5:06 AM Shaila Sharmin 
wrote:

> 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   |
> +---+---+ +---+---+
> | DECIX-Mumbai  |  446  ||   14  | Decix
> Kolkata |
> +---+---+ +---+---+
> | MegaIX Sydney |  232  ||   46  | EdgeIX -
> Melbourne|
> +---+---++---+--
> -+
>
>
> 2. Objective of policy change
> -
> The objective of this proposal is to modify the default size of IPv4
> assignments for IXPs from up to /23 to /26, which can receive a
> replacement up to a maximum of a /22, provided the IXP returns the IPv4
> address space previously assigned to them.
>
> 3. Situation in other regions
> -
> Similar policy has been adopted by RIPE NCC ( ripe-733 :  IPv4 Address
> Allocation and Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region ) [4]
>
>
> 4. Proposed policy solution
> ---
>
> Current Policy text :
>
> 6.2.4. IPv4 for Internet Exchange Points
>
> Internet Exchange Points (IXP) are eligible to receive a delegation from
> APNIC to be used exclusively to connect the IXP participant devices to
> the Exchange Point.
>
> Global routability of the delegation is left to the discretion of the
> IXP and its participants.
>
> New Policy text :
>
> 6.2.4. IPv4 for Internet Exchange Points
>
> By default, a /26 of IPv4 address block will be assigned to the new IXPs.
>
> IXPs can seek an assignment of up to a /25 when they can justify having
> more than 60 peers on the IXP fabric (peering LAN) in the next 12

[sig-policy] Re: New version: prop-154: Resizing of IPv4 assignment for the IXPs

2023-09-11 Thread Sanjeev Gupta

Thank you, Vivek.

Aftab, so what I understand is, new IXPs will be at a disadvantage compared
to other new applicants. Others can get a /23 initial, IXPs get a /26.

You had mentioned that this proposal would encourage IXs.


On Tue, 12 Sep 2023, 13:29 Vivek Nigam,  wrote:

> Hi Sanjeev,
>
>
>
> 1. We don't have a separate pool for IXP delegations.
>
>
>
> 2. Based on recent delegation trends, APNIC and NIRs combined delegate
> about 280 /24's each month.
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
> Vivek
>
>
>
> *From: *Sanjeev Gupta 
> *Date: *Monday, 11 September 2023 at 2:35 pm
> *To: *sig-policy 
> *Cc: *Aftab Siddiqui 
> *Subject: *[sig-policy] Re: New version: prop-154: Resizing of IPv4
> assignment for the IXPs
>
> Would the APNIC Secetariat please clarify (for IPv4):
>
>
>
>1. Are IXP allocations made from a separate pool?  If so,
>
>
>1. What is the free size of the pool
>   2. What is the rate of depletion
>
>
>1. What is the rate of depletion of the general (final /8) pool?
>
> I am trying to understand what we will achieve by holding IXP allocations
> to a tighter standard (/26) than general new signups, which get a /23
> anyway.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Sanjeev Gupta
> +65 98551208   http://sg.linkedin.com/in/ghane
> <https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fsg.linkedin.com%2Fin%2Fghane=05%7C01%7C%7C38ed677cc90a46c7215108dbb288e14b%7C127d8d0d7ccf473dab096e44ad752ded%7C0%7C0%7C638300073195866861%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C=WikbihZjC%2Bg0E%2BnQN51Nx2%2FscbLFAhC84yzBCZPLzf8%3D=0>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Sep 9, 2023 at 7:07 AM Shaila Sharmin <
> shaila.sharmin@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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 |
> +-

[sig-policy] Re: New version: prop-154: Resizing of IPv4 assignment for the IXPs

2023-09-11 Thread Vivek Nigam

Hi Sanjeev, 

1. We don't have a separate pool for IXP delegations. 

2. Based on recent delegation trends, APNIC and NIRs combined delegate about 
280 /24's each month. 

Thanks 
Vivek 

From: Sanjeev Gupta 
Date: Monday, 11 September 2023 at 2:35 pm
To: sig-policy 
Cc: Aftab Siddiqui 
Subject: [sig-policy] Re: New version: prop-154: Resizing of IPv4 assignment 
for the IXPs 

Would the APNIC Secetariat please clarify (for IPv4): 




1. Are IXP allocations made from a separate pool? If so, 


 1. What is the free size of the pool 
 2. What is the rate of depletion 


1. What is the rate of depletion of the general (final /8) pool? 

I am trying to understand what we will achieve by holding IXP allocations to a 
tighter standard (/26) than general new signups, which get a /23 anyway. 









-- 
Sanjeev Gupta
+65 98551208 http://sg.linkedin.com/in/ghane <_blank> 






On Sat, Sep 9, 2023 at 7:07 AM Shaila Sharmin mailto:shaila.sharmin@gmail.com>> wrote: 

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 <_blank>

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 <_blank>)
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 |
+---+---+ +---+---+
| DECIX-Mumbai | 446 | | 14 | Decix 
Kolkata |
+---+---+ +---+---+
| MegaIX Sydney | 232 | | 46 | EdgeIX - 
Melbourne |
+---+---++---+---+


2. Objective of policy change
-
The objective of this proposal is to modify the default size of IPv4 
assignments for IXPs from up to /23 to /26, which can receive a 
replacement up to a maximum of a /22, provided the IXP returns the IPv4 
address space previously assigned to them.

3. Situation in other regions
-
Similar policy has been adopted by RIPE NCC ( ripe-733 : IPv4 Address 
Allocation and Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region ) [4]


4. Proposed policy solution
---

Current Policy text :

6.2.4. IPv4 for Internet Exchange Points

Internet Exchange Points (IXP) are eligible to receive a delegation from 
APNIC to be used exclusively to connect the IXP participant devices to 
the Exchange Point.

Global routability of the delegation is left to the discretion of the 
IXP and its participants.

New Policy text :

6.2.4. IPv4 for Internet Exchange Points

[sig-policy] Re: New version: prop-154: Resizing of IPv4 assignment for the IXPs

2023-09-10 Thread Sanjeev Gupta

Would the APNIC Secetariat please clarify (for IPv4):


   1. Are IXP allocations made from a separate pool?  If so,
  1. What is the free size of the pool
  2. What is the rate of depletion
   2. What is the rate of depletion of the general (final /8) pool?

I am trying to understand what we will achieve by holding IXP allocations
to a tighter standard (/26) than general new signups, which get a /23
anyway.




-- 
Sanjeev Gupta
+65 98551208   http://sg.linkedin.com/in/ghane


On Sat, Sep 9, 2023 at 7:07 AM Shaila Sharmin 
wrote:

> 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   |
> +---+---+ +---+---+
> | DECIX-Mumbai  |  446  ||   14  | Decix
> Kolkata |
> +---+---+ +---+---+
> | MegaIX Sydney |  232  ||   46  | EdgeIX -
> Melbourne|
> +---+---++---+--
> -+
>
>
> 2. Objective of policy change
> -
> The objective of this proposal is to modify the default size of IPv4
> assignments for IXPs from up to /23 to /26, which can receive a
> replacement up to a maximum of a /22, provided the IXP returns the IPv4
> address space previously assigned to them.
>
> 3. Situation in other regions
> -
> Similar policy has been adopted by RIPE NCC ( ripe-733 :  IPv4 Address
> Allocation and Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region ) [4]
>
>
> 4. Proposed policy solution
> ---
>
> Current Policy text :
>
> 6.2.4. IPv4 for Internet Exchange Points
>
> Internet Exchange Points (IXP) are eligible to receive a delegation from
> APNIC to be used exclusively to connect the IXP participant devices to
> the Exchange Point.
>
> Global routability of the delegation is left to the discretion of the
> IXP and its participants.
>
> New Policy

[sig-policy] Re: New version: prop-154: Resizing of IPv4 assignment for the IXPs

2023-09-10 Thread Sanjeev Gupta

On Mon, Sep 11, 2023 at 11:28 AM Aftab Siddiqui 
wrote:

> You receive a /26 for a new site as per this new policy, you already have
> a /24 assigned to your account which is out of the scope of this policy and
> can be globally advertised if you want to, you can't advertise anything you
> receive under this policy.
>
> First statement says, you can not announce any resource you receive under
> this policy
>
> Second statement says, any resource you have received outside this policy
> whether its directly from APNIC or through transfer then it is not
> restricted to be announced.
>
> I hope that clarifies.
>

Understood.

So the impact will be the paragraph:

*Criteria for Internet Exchange Points*


   - Internet Exchange Points (IXP) are eligible to receive a delegation
   from APNIC to be used exclusively to connect the IXP participant devices to
   the Exchange Point.
   - Global routability of the delegation is left to the discretion of the
   IXP and its participants.


at:
https://www.apnic.net/get-ip/get-ip-addresses-asn/check-your-eligibility/

Thank you.
-- 
Sanjeev
___
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-le...@lists.apnic.net

[sig-policy] Re: New version: prop-154: Resizing of IPv4 assignment for the IXPs

2023-09-10 Thread Aftab Siddiqui

Hi Sanjeev,

On Sat, 9 Sept 2023 at 22:23, Sanjeev Gupta  wrote:

>
> On Sat, Sep 9, 2023 at 7:07 AM Shaila Sharmin <
> shaila.sharmin@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>> Any resources assigned under this policy will not be announced in the
>> global routing table (mistakes are exempted) and must be used for IXP
>> peering only, in case otherwise the resources will be revoked by APNIC.
>>
>> Global routability of the delegation outside this policy is left to the
>> discretion of the IXP and its participants.
>>
>
> I am unclear what the two paragraphs above mean, together.
>
> My new IX (BEST!!!-IX) receives a /26.
>
> The first paragraph says I MUST NOT announce this outside the IX LAN.  Or
> else
>
> The second says it is left to my discretion.
>
> What am I missing?
>

You receive a /26 for a new site as per this new policy, you already have a
/24 assigned to your account which is out of the scope of this policy and
can be globally advertised if you want to, you can't advertise anything you
receive under this policy.

First statement says, you can not announce any resource you receive under
this policy

Second statement says, any resource you have received outside this policy
whether its directly from APNIC or through transfer then it is not
restricted to be announced.

I hope that clarifies.
___
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-le...@lists.apnic.net

[sig-policy] Re: New version: prop-154: Resizing of IPv4 assignment for the IXPs

2023-09-10 Thread Owen DeLong via SIG-policy

I remain opposed to this proposal. It is an unnecessary and pointless 
rearranging of deck chairs
with zero benefit to the community.

When we run out of /24s to give to new IXs, It is utterly harmless for IXs to 
become IPv6 only
fabrics. IPv4 NRLI can be exchanged over IPv6 peering sessions with zero issues.

Owen


> On Sep 8, 2023, at 16:06, Shaila Sharmin  wrote:
> 
> 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   |
> +---+---+ +---+---+
> | DECIX-Mumbai  |  446  ||   14  | Decix 
> Kolkata |
> +---+---+ +---+---+
> | MegaIX Sydney |  232  ||   46  | EdgeIX - 
> Melbourne|
> +---+---++---+---+
> 
> 
> 2. Objective of policy change
> -
> The objective of this proposal is to modify the default size of IPv4 
> assignments for IXPs from up to /23 to /26, which can receive a 
> replacement up to a maximum of a /22, provided the IXP returns the IPv4 
> address space previously assigned to them.
> 
> 3. Situation in other regions
> -
> Similar policy has been adopted by RIPE NCC ( ripe-733 :  IPv4 Address 
> Allocation and Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region ) [4]
> 
> 
> 4. Proposed policy solution
> ---
> 
> Current Policy text :
> 
> 6.2.4. IPv4 for Internet Exchange Points
> 
> Internet Exchange Points (IXP) are eligible to receive a delegation from 
> APNIC to be used exclusively to connect the IXP participant devices to 
> the Exchange Point.
> 
> Global routability of the delegation is left to the discretion of the 
> IXP and its participants.
> 
> New Policy text :
> 
> 6.2.4. IPv4 for Internet Exchange Points
> 
> By default, a /26 of IPv4 address block

[sig-policy] Re: New version: prop-154: Resizing of IPv4 assignment for the IXPs

2023-09-09 Thread Sanjeev Gupta

On Sat, Sep 9, 2023 at 7:07 AM Shaila Sharmin 
wrote:

> Any resources assigned under this policy will not be announced in the
> global routing table (mistakes are exempted) and must be used for IXP
> peering only, in case otherwise the resources will be revoked by APNIC.
>
> Global routability of the delegation outside this policy is left to the
> discretion of the IXP and its participants.
>

I am unclear what the two paragraphs above mean, together.

My new IX (BEST!!!-IX) receives a /26.

The first paragraph says I MUST NOT announce this outside the IX LAN.  Or
else

The second says it is left to my discretion.

What am I missing?

> 5. Advantages / Disadvantages
> -
> Advantages:
> This proposal will ensure rapid expansion of IXPs in terms of membership
> and POP numbers for this region and smoothen allocation of IPv4.
>

How?  How will *restricting* the allocation "ensure rapid expansion"?

You also state:
> Reducing the default assignment size to /26 would stop wasting a large amount
of valuable IPv4 space

We have to decide consistently if IPv4 space is valuable or not.  If it is,
let me use this, it has value to me.  Let me use it to increas emy value
(perhaps transfer?  Allocate?  Compress?  Dare I say: Lease?)

But then I am told that IPv6 is here to stay, and IPv4 is valueless.  I
organised the Singapore IPv6 Day a dozen years ago.  Why are we tinkering
with something that is dying?  I mean, Members should be rushing to return
their IPv4 space to reduce their APNIC bills, right?

 --
Sanjeev Gupta
+65 98551208   http://sg.linkedin.com/in/ghane

>
>
___
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-le...@lists.apnic.net

[sig-policy] Re: New version: prop-154: Resizing of IPv4 assignment for the IXPs

[sig-policy] Re: New version: prop-154: Resizing of IPv4 assignment for the IXPs

[sig-policy] Re: New version: prop-154: Resizing of IPv4 assignment for the IXPs

[sig-policy] Re: New version: prop-154: Resizing of IPv4 assignment for the IXPs

[sig-policy] Re: New version: prop-154: Resizing of IPv4 assignment for the IXPs

[sig-policy] Re: New version: prop-154: Resizing of IPv4 assignment for the IXPs

[sig-policy] Re: New version: prop-154: Resizing of IPv4 assignment for the IXPs

[sig-policy] Re: New version: prop-154: Resizing of IPv4 assignment for the IXPs

[sig-policy] Re: New version: prop-154: Resizing of IPv4 assignment for the IXPs

[sig-policy] Re: New version: prop-154: Resizing of IPv4 assignment for the IXPs

[sig-policy] Re: New version: prop-154: Resizing of IPv4 assignment for the IXPs

[sig-policy] Re: New version: prop-154: Resizing of IPv4 assignment for the IXPs

[sig-policy] Re: New version: prop-154: Resizing of IPv4 assignment for the IXPs

13 matches

Site Navigation

Mail list logo

Footer information