[sig-policy] Join the APNIC 57 Policy Proposals Webinar
Dear Colleagues, Policy SIG is organizing an open webinar for the authors of the policy proposals to be discussed at the APNIC 57 Open Policy Meeting (OPM). The purpose of the webinar is to provide an opportunity for the authors to share their policy proposals with the community and for the community to provide feedback to the authors, if any. We invite you to join this webinar on: Date: *Thursday, 15 February 2024* Time: *16:00 (UTC +10)* Duration: 1 hour The webinar is open to anyone who wishes to participate. If you are interested, *please register here to join.* https://apnic.zoom.us/meeting/register/tJUodOirrTgjGNJPCmYCXBNOBhjCxbmydB53 After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the session. Useful links for reference: - APNIC 57 Policy Proposals https://conference.apnic.net/57/policy/proposals/index.html We look forward to seeing you online. Regards, Bertrand, Shaila, and Anupam APNIC Policy SIG Chairs ___ 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 proposal: prop-158-v001: IPv6 auto-allocation for each IPv4 request
This proposal is yet another gift from the bad idea fairy… Wait… It’s actually a regift from someone else who got it from the bad idea fairy on its last go-around. While I’m all for reuse and recycling, this one needs to go to the landfill. It was a bad idea the first several times it was proposed and nothing has changed to make it a good idea now. Owen > On Jan 29, 2024, at 16:24, Sunny Chendi wrote: > > Dear SIG members, > > The Secretariat's impact assessment for this proposal is provided below as > well as published at: > http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-158 > > APNIC notes that this proposal suggests automatically delegating IPv6 address > resource to new and initial IPv4 requests to accelerate IPv6 implementation. > > APNIC also notes that this proposal is applicable to both APNIC and NIR > account holders. > > Questions/Comments: > - The current APNIC Membership form allows account holders to request > multiple IP resources (IPv4, IPv6, and ASN) while applying for APNIC > membership. Account holders can also simply get an IPv6 delegation by > one-click process in MyAPNIC. > > - The proposal suggests “Automatically delegated IPv6 address should be put > into deployment within two years from the date of the delegation”. Is the > intention that the outcome of not complying with this policy is the > revocation of just the IPv6 resources, also the IPv4 resources applied for at > the same time, or an alternative option? > > - If the account holder requests a /23 IPv4 and is also automatically > delegated a /32 IPv6, the fees payable by the account holder will increase as > the fee for /32 IPv6 is greater than /23 IPv4. > > Implementation: > If this proposal reaches consensus, implementation may be completed within > three months. > > Regards, > Sunny > APNIC Secretariat > > > On 15/01/2024 9:39 am, Bertrand Cherrier via SIG-policy wrote: >> Dear SIG members, >> >> A new proposal "prop-158-v001: IPv6 auto-allocation for each IPv4 request" >> has been sent to the Policy SIG for review. >> >> It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting (OPM) at APNIC 57 on >> Thursday, 29 February 2024. >> >> https://2024.apricot.net/program/program/#/day/9/ >> >> We invite you to review and comment on the proposal on the mailing list >> before the OPM. >> >> The comment period on the mailing list before the OPM is an important >> part of the Policy Development Process (PDP). We encourage you to >> express your views on the proposal: >> >> - Do you support or oppose this proposal? >> - Does this proposal solve a problem you are experiencing? If so, >> tell the community about your situation. >> - Do you see any disadvantages in this proposal? >> - Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear? >> - What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more effective? >> >> Information about this proposal is appended below as well as available at: >> >> http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-158 >> >> Regards, >> Bertrand, Shaila, and Anupam >> APNIC Policy SIG Chairs >> >> -- >> >> prop-158-v001: IPv6 auto-allocation for each IPv4 request >> >> --- >> >> Proposers: David Aditya Yoga Pratama (da...@idnic.net) >> M. Andri Setiawan (an...@idnic.net) >> >> >> 1. Problem statement >> - >> >> Based on this >> https://www.apnic.net/manage-ip/ipv4-exhaustion/#how-much-apnic-has, APNIC >> still has around 2,539,776 available IPv4 addresses and may claimed another >> 2,479,360 reserved IPv4 addresses. >> >> APNIC member still can get /24 of IPv4 addresses based on the current APNIC >> policy. >> >> Most of the new IPv4 requestors are not allocated or requesting IPv6 even >> though they are eligible to do so. >> >> The rates of IPv4 allocation is faster than IPv6 allocation and it may keep >> slow the deployment of IPv6. >> >> APNIC associate member can get IPv6 without additional cost (proposal-155), >> so APNIC member should be able to do the same when they request IPv4 address. >> >> 2. Objective of policy change >> -- >> >> Allocate IPv6 addresses to each IPv4 addresses requests to speed up the IPv6 >> adoption and deployment rates. >> >> 3. Situation in other regions >> >> >> AFRINIC - No such policy >> ARIN - No such policy and it has no available address space to be offered >> RIPE NCC - No such policy and it has no available address space to be offered >> LACNIC - IPv6 allocation request is used as “requirements” for any IPv4 >> request as mentioned in their policy point 2.3.3.1 - 2.3.3.4 and 2.3.4. “The >> applicant must already have at least one IPv6 block assigned by LACNIC or, >> if not, must simultaneously request an initial IPv6 block in accordance with >> the corresponding
[sig-policy] Re: New proposal - prop-157-v001: Temporary IPv4 Transfers
I would think that in any case where there is a (valid and verified) request which cannot be fulfilled otherwise, but could be fulfilled by early termination of the quarantine period that APNIC should contact the requestor and offer them the option of accepting the space in that condition. Once informed consent is obtained, I would expect APNIC to make a good faith effort to complete any remaining quarantine activities (with added caution not to step on the new recipient). If this requires a policy proposal I can submit one, but I think it’s a fairly common sense approach to the circumstance, should it arise. Owen > On Jan 29, 2024, at 16:20, Sunny Chendi wrote: > > Dear SIG members, > > The Secretariat's impact assessment for this proposal is provided below as > well as published at: > http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-157 > > APNIC notes that this proposal suggests a policy modification that would > allow for temporary transfers between account holders (applying to intra-RIR > transfers, e.g. APNIC and NIR account holders, but not inter-RIR transfers, > e.g. APNIC to another RIR). > > Questions/Comments: > - APNIC would like to remind the community that the current policy outlined > in Section 11.1.2. “Conditions on the source of the transfer” which applies > to ‘permanent’ transfers would also apply to ‘temporary’ transfers if this > proposal reaches consensus. > > - Based on the current wording of the APNIC Fee Schedules, Transfer Fees > would be applicable to the temporary transfers. > > - The intent of the proposed text appears to be that APNIC update the > existing transfer log to include temporary transfers, however this would > change the meaning of the file in a fundamental way that will likely cause > problems for some clients (mainly because an entry in that log no longer > represents a permanent transfer). APNIC suggests that the temporary transfers > should be logged separately from permanent transfers for this reason. > > - The proposal suggests that the transfer contract "include terms of transfer > cancellation in case of usage of the resources for network abuse." If the > intention is that APNIC revoke resources for network abuse, APNIC will not be > able to do so under this provision as APNIC cannot enforce the terms of a > contract it is not a party to. > > - Does the author propose that APNIC will implement a temporary transfers > agreement template and standardised the process in a similar way to RIPE NCC? > > - Ensuring compliance with MANRS practices would require APNIC to monitor and > enforce policies over which it has no control. How does the author propose > APNIC ensure compliance with ‘11.1.4. Additional conditions for temporary > transfers’, especially "The recipient must follow MANRS best practices."? > > Implementation: > This proposal may require changes to APNIC systems. If this proposal reaches > consensus, implementation may be completed within three months. > > Regards, > Sunny > APNIC Secretariat > > On 14/12/2023 12:55 pm, Bertrand Cherrier wrote: >> Dear SIG members, >> >> A new proposal "prop-157-v001: Temporary IPv4 Transfers" has been sent to >> the Policy SIG for review. >> >> It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting (OPM) at APNIC 57 on >> Thursday, 29 February 2024. >> >> https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2F2024.apricot.net%2Fprogram%2Fprogram%2F%23%2Fday%2F9%2F=05%7C02%7C%7C96c320a0c7bb4e6a778008dbfc501ddd%7C127d8d0d7ccf473dab096e44ad752ded%7C0%7C0%7C638381193266052234%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C=wHJMNZRDt48kdnbwDKs2Sc2uGR9ZleDC7IY2kAaAwXQ%3D=0 >> >> >> We invite you to review and comment on the proposal on the mailing list >> before the OPM. >> >> The comment period on the mailing list before the OPM is an important >> part of the Policy Development Process (PDP). We encourage you to >> express your views on the proposal: >> >> - Do you support or oppose this proposal? >> - Does this proposal solve a problem you are experiencing? If so, >> tell the community about your situation. >> - Do you see any disadvantages in this proposal? >> - Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear? >> - What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more effective? >> >> Information about this proposal is appended below as well as available at: >> >> http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-157 >> >> Regards, >> Bertrand, Shaila, and Anupam >> APNIC Policy SIG Chairs >> >> --- >> >> prop-157-v001: Temporary IPv4 Transfers >> >> >> >> Proposer: Jordi Palet Martinez (jordi.pa...@theipv6company.com) >> >> >> 1. Problem statement >> >> When in the community we discuss the need for leasing, understood broadly in >> any
[sig-policy] Re: New proposal: prop-158-v001: IPv6 auto-allocation for each IPv4 request
Dear SIG members, The Secretariat's impact assessment for this proposal is provided below as well as published at: http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-158 APNIC notes that this proposal suggests automatically delegating IPv6 address resource to new and initial IPv4 requests to accelerate IPv6 implementation. APNIC also notes that this proposal is applicable to both APNIC and NIR account holders. Questions/Comments: - The current APNIC Membership form allows account holders to request multiple IP resources (IPv4, IPv6, and ASN) while applying for APNIC membership. Account holders can also simply get an IPv6 delegation by one-click process in MyAPNIC. - The proposal suggests “Automatically delegated IPv6 address should be put into deployment within two years from the date of the delegation”. Is the intention that the outcome of not complying with this policy is the revocation of just the IPv6 resources, also the IPv4 resources applied for at the same time, or an alternative option? - If the account holder requests a /23 IPv4 and is also automatically delegated a /32 IPv6, the fees payable by the account holder will increase as the fee for /32 IPv6 is greater than /23 IPv4. Implementation: If this proposal reaches consensus, implementation may be completed within three months. Regards, Sunny APNIC Secretariat On 15/01/2024 9:39 am, Bertrand Cherrier via SIG-policy wrote: Dear SIG members, A new proposal "prop-158-v001: IPv6 auto-allocation for each IPv4 request" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review. It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting (OPM) at APNIC 57 on Thursday, 29 February 2024. https://2024.apricot.net/program/program/#/day/9/ We invite you to review and comment on the proposal on the mailing list before the OPM. The comment period on the mailing list before the OPM is an important part of the Policy Development Process (PDP). We encourage you to express your views on the proposal: - Do you support or oppose this proposal? - Does this proposal solve a problem you are experiencing? If so, tell the community about your situation. - Do you see any disadvantages in this proposal? - Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear? - What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more effective? Information about this proposal is appended below as well as available at: http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-158 Regards, Bertrand, Shaila, and Anupam APNIC Policy SIG Chairs -- prop-158-v001: IPv6 auto-allocation for each IPv4 request --- Proposers: David Aditya Yoga Pratama (da...@idnic.net) M. Andri Setiawan (an...@idnic.net) 1. Problem statement - Based on this https://www.apnic.net/manage-ip/ipv4-exhaustion/#how-much-apnic-has, APNIC still has around 2,539,776 available IPv4 addresses and may claimed another 2,479,360 reserved IPv4 addresses. APNIC member still can get /24 of IPv4 addresses based on the current APNIC policy. Most of the new IPv4 requestors are not allocated or requesting IPv6 even though they are eligible to do so. The rates of IPv4 allocation is faster than IPv6 allocation and it may keep slow the deployment of IPv6. APNIC associate member can get IPv6 without additional cost (proposal-155), so APNIC member should be able to do the same when they request IPv4 address. 2. Objective of policy change -- Allocate IPv6 addresses to each IPv4 addresses requests to speed up the IPv6 adoption and deployment rates. 3. Situation in other regions AFRINIC - No such policy ARIN - No such policy and it has no available address space to be offered RIPE NCC - No such policy and it has no available address space to be offered LACNIC - IPv6 allocation request is used as “requirements” for any IPv4 request as mentioned in their policy point 2.3.3.1 - 2.3.3.4 and 2.3.4. “The applicant must already have at least one IPv6 block assigned by LACNIC or, if not, must simultaneously request an initial IPv6 block in accordance with the corresponding applicable policy. (If an applicant has already been assigned an IPv6 block, they shall submit to LACNIC a brief document describing their progress in the implementation of IPv6.)” 4. Proposed policy solution Add this to Section "6.1. Minimum and maximum IPv4 delegations" of the APNIC Policy document. For all new and initial IPv4 delegation requests, APNIC and NIR will automatically delegates IPv6 address, matching the IPv6 policy in Section 8.2.1 (i.e allocation or assignment). Automatically delegated IPv6 address should be put into deployment within two years from the date of the delegation, same as Point 3 in Section 8.2.2. For any subsequent IPv4
[sig-policy] Re: New proposal - prop-157-v001: Temporary IPv4 Transfers
Dear SIG members, The Secretariat's impact assessment for this proposal is provided below as well as published at: http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-157 APNIC notes that this proposal suggests a policy modification that would allow for temporary transfers between account holders (applying to intra-RIR transfers, e.g. APNIC and NIR account holders, but not inter-RIR transfers, e.g. APNIC to another RIR). Questions/Comments: - APNIC would like to remind the community that the current policy outlined in Section 11.1.2. “Conditions on the source of the transfer” which applies to ‘permanent’ transfers would also apply to ‘temporary’ transfers if this proposal reaches consensus. - Based on the current wording of the APNIC Fee Schedules, Transfer Fees would be applicable to the temporary transfers. - The intent of the proposed text appears to be that APNIC update the existing transfer log to include temporary transfers, however this would change the meaning of the file in a fundamental way that will likely cause problems for some clients (mainly because an entry in that log no longer represents a permanent transfer). APNIC suggests that the temporary transfers should be logged separately from permanent transfers for this reason. - The proposal suggests that the transfer contract "include terms of transfer cancellation in case of usage of the resources for network abuse." If the intention is that APNIC revoke resources for network abuse, APNIC will not be able to do so under this provision as APNIC cannot enforce the terms of a contract it is not a party to. - Does the author propose that APNIC will implement a temporary transfers agreement template and standardised the process in a similar way to RIPE NCC? - Ensuring compliance with MANRS practices would require APNIC to monitor and enforce policies over which it has no control. How does the author propose APNIC ensure compliance with ‘11.1.4. Additional conditions for temporary transfers’, especially "The recipient must follow MANRS best practices."? Implementation: This proposal may require changes to APNIC systems. If this proposal reaches consensus, implementation may be completed within three months. Regards, Sunny APNIC Secretariat On 14/12/2023 12:55 pm, Bertrand Cherrier wrote: Dear SIG members, A new proposal "prop-157-v001: Temporary IPv4 Transfers" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review. It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting (OPM) at APNIC 57 on Thursday, 29 February 2024. https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2F2024.apricot.net%2Fprogram%2Fprogram%2F%23%2Fday%2F9%2F=05%7C02%7C%7C96c320a0c7bb4e6a778008dbfc501ddd%7C127d8d0d7ccf473dab096e44ad752ded%7C0%7C0%7C638381193266052234%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C=wHJMNZRDt48kdnbwDKs2Sc2uGR9ZleDC7IY2kAaAwXQ%3D=0 We invite you to review and comment on the proposal on the mailing list before the OPM. The comment period on the mailing list before the OPM is an important part of the Policy Development Process (PDP). We encourage you to express your views on the proposal: - Do you support or oppose this proposal? - Does this proposal solve a problem you are experiencing? If so, tell the community about your situation. - Do you see any disadvantages in this proposal? - Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear? - What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more effective? Information about this proposal is appended below as well as available at: http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-157 Regards, Bertrand, Shaila, and Anupam APNIC Policy SIG Chairs --- prop-157-v001: Temporary IPv4 Transfers Proposer: Jordi Palet Martinez (jordi.pa...@theipv6company.com) 1. Problem statement When in the community we discuss the need for leasing, understood broadly in any of its possible modalities, as one of the mechanisms to facilitate small sets of IPv4 addresses for the transition to IPv6, specially for new actors, there are mixed feelings about accepting the leasing or not. However, we are forgetting that there is already a mechanism, already accepted by the community, that could be slightly modified to be equivalent to a leasing, and yet have many advantages for both parties: temporary transfers. It is about guaranteeing compliance with the policies with a system equivalent to leasing, and that makes it easier to avoid security problems, keeping the control by the RIR/NIR, and the security of the return of the addresses when the leasing period concludes. At the same time, it seeks to cover the need to be flexible without excessive operational burden for the RIR/NIR, so that the leasing period can be simply extended, since it is understood
[sig-policy] Re: New proposal - prop-156-v001: Assignment of Temporary IP Resources
Dear SIG members, The Secretariat's impact assessment for this proposal is provided below as well as published at: http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-156 APNIC notes that this proposal suggests reserving the /21 IPv4 prefix from the non-103/8 pool, as well as a /29 IPv6 prefix and 8 Autonomous System numbers, for delegation to events such as conferences and any other reason that APNIC deems appropriate and for which a long-term assignment would not be feasible, not exceeding 6 months period. Questions/Comments: - With the implementation of Proposal 129, APNIC no longer distinguishes between 103/8 and non-103/8 IPv4 pools. All IPv4 addresses will be delegated from the available last /8 pool. - The proposed Section 5.8.2 includes the following "A temporary assignment can be made if the criteria set out in 5.8.2.1 to 5.8.2.3 is met..." This text if interpreted strictly by the Secretariat would mean that all three criteria must be met to receive a temporary assignment which would negatively impact the perceived intent of the policy. To avoid any confusion, the author may consider changing the language so that only one criterion needs to be satisfied, e.g. "A temporary assignment can be made if one of the criteria set out in 5.8.2.1 to 5.8.2.3 is met...". - Can the author provide a clear definition of what is considered 'commercial in nature' and ‘commercial purpose’? The Secretariat would like to understand, from an implementation perspective, whether this is intended to include any event where attendance requires payment or whether, for example, the intention is that the overall purpose of the event must not be commercial in nature (e.g. a NOG event). - How does the author propose if all the reserved /21 IPv4 addresses were delegated and APNIC received new requests for temporary IP resources? - It is operational practice to quarantine recovered and/or returned addresses for at least six months. This is to delete all Whois registrations, including route objects and ROAs, to clean up address space for delegation. How does the author propose if the delegated temporary IP resources are returned to APNIC and there are requests awaiting immediate assignment? Implementation: This proposal may require changes to APNIC systems. If this proposal reaches consensus, implementation may be completed within three months. Regards, Sunny APNIC Secretariat On 13/12/2023 5:05 pm, Bertrand Cherrier wrote: Dear SIG members, A new proposal "prop-156-v001: Assignment of Temporary IP Resources" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review. It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting (OPM) at APNIC 57 on Thursday, 29 February 2024. https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2F2024.apricot.net%2Fprogram%2Fprogram%2F%23%2Fday%2F9%2F=05%7C02%7C%7C60eb3ae9f3334909f17308dbfba9e9b4%7C127d8d0d7ccf473dab096e44ad752ded%7C0%7C0%7C638380479431808063%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C=GFWjzK0YYmIq2kELDuq3aT%2F1m9vvk2kJgLLHZyCIUgY%3D=0 We invite you to review and comment on the proposal on the mailing list before the OPM. The comment period on the mailing list before the OPM is an important part of the Policy Development Process (PDP). We encourage you to express your views on the proposal: - Do you support or oppose this proposal? - Does this proposal solve a problem you are experiencing? If so, tell the community about your situation. - Do you see any disadvantages in this proposal? - Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear? - What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more effective? Information about this proposal is appended below as well as available at: http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-156 Regards, Bertrand, Shaila, and Anupam APNIC Policy SIG Chairs --- prop-156-v001: Assignment of Temporary IP Resources Proposer: Christopher Hawker (ch...@thesysadmin.dev) 1. Problem statement At the moment, APNIC does not currently have any policies or mechanisms in place for the temporary assignment of IP resources with the exception of experimental space, see Section 5.7 of APNIC-127: APNIC Internet Number Resource Policies. This means that those who require resources for temporary purposes (such as conferences and exhibitions) must use existing delegations under other policies, which may not be in line with justification provided when the resources were initially delegated. 2. Objective of policy change - The objective of this policy change is to allow for the reservation of a /21 IPv4 prefix from the non-103/8 pool as well as a /29 IPv6 prefix and 8 Autonomous System numbers, and for temporary assignments to be made from this reserved space for
