Dear SIG members,
A new proposal "prop-154-v001: Resizing of IPv4 assignment for the IXPs" has
been sent to the Policy SIG for review.
It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting (OPM) at APNIC 56 on Thursday,
14 September 2023.
https://conference.apnic.net/56/program/program/#/day/8/
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-154
Regards,
Bertrand, Shaila, and Anupam
APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
---------------------------------------------------------------
prop-154-v001: Resizing of IPv4 assignment for the IXPs
----------------------------------------------------------------
Proposer: Simon Sohel Baroi ([email protected])
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 the places the resources have been under-utilised and new
IXPs are wasting a large
amount of valuable IPv4 spaces. 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 number
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 /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 months.
IXPs can seek an assignment of up to a /24 when they can justify having
more than 100 peers on
the IXP fabric (peering LAN) in the next 12 months.
If it is a national IXP and the said economy doesn’t have more than 60
registered APNIC members
or resource holders (from other RIRs or legacy space holders) then there
is no justification to
have more than /27 assignments.
An IXP which received an assignment less than /24 can request upto /23
IPv4, only if 60% of
the original assignment has been used. The existing assignment must be
returned by the IXP
within 3 months of the new assignment.
Existing Large IXPs that already have used their maximum assignment of
/23 from current policy can
request a contiguous block (if available) of /22, only if they have
already used 80% of existing
assignments. The existing assignment must be returned by the IXP within 3
months of the new assignment.
Any resources less than /24 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.
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. Reducing the default assignment size to
/26 would stop wasting a large
amount of valuable IPv4 space.
Disadvantages:
When the IXP operator jumps into a bigger block of IPv4 and returns the
existing one, then they might be
required to renumber all routers connected to that IXP fabric (peering LAN).
6. Impact on APNIC
------------------
The IXP who already became an APNIC member and has less IPv4 Resources
can also apply for maximum delegation
for their expansion.
References
----------
[1] Section 6.2.4. IPv4 for Internet Exchange Points.
https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/resources#a_h_6_2_4
[2] Section 9.1.3. IPv6 for Internet Exchange Points.
https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/resources#a_h_9_1_3
[3] Section 11.1.2. Conditions on source of the transfer
https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/resources#a_h_11_1
[4] IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC
Service Region
https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-733
[5] PeeringDB
https://www.peeringdb.com/
_______________________________________________
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/[email protected]/
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
