----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Secretariat Impact Assessment: prop-154-v001
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
APNIC notes that the proposed default IPv4 delegation size for
any new IXP will be a /26, and the IXP can request more based on
the number of peers connected at that IX facility. Current large
IXP account holders can request a contiguous /22 IPv4 if 80% of
the current /23 IPv4 is used, and the existing /23 must be returned
to APNIC.
APNIC also notes that the proposal suggests APNIC check the routing
table to revoke any less than /24 IPv4 delegations announced in the
global routing table.
Questions/Comments:
------------------------------
- Can an existing account holder request more IP addresses if they
have already received their final /23 IPv4 under the current IPv4
policy and want to start an IXP?
- There is an assumption with this proposal that IXP-type account holders
only have IXP assignments. How do the authors propose APNIC applies this
to account holders who have both regular allocations and IXP assignments?
- The current minimum transfer size for IPv4 addresses is /24. If an IXP
receives a /25 or /26, they cannot transfer it even after using it for 5
years,
unlike IXPs who receive /24 or larger assignments. Is this the author's
intention, or should there be a transfer restriction on all IXP assignments
made under this proposal?
- According to the proposal, a national IXP in an economy with fewer than
60 account holders cannot have more than /27 IPv4 assignment. The proposed
default size, however, is a /26. Is this the author's intention, or a typo?
Implementation:
----------------------
This proposal may require changes to business rules and systems. If this
proposal reaches consensus, implementation may be completed within six
months.
Regards,
Sunny
On 8/08/2023 2:11 pm, Shaila Sharmin wrote:
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
<https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-733>
[5] PeeringDB
https://www.peeringdb.com/
<https://www.peeringdb.com/>
_______________________________________________
SIG-policy -https://mailman.apnic.net/[email protected]/
To unsubscribe send an email [email protected]
--
_______________________________________________________________________
Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi (he/him)
Senior Advisor - Policy and Community Development
Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC) | Tel: +61 7 3858 3100
PO Box 3646 South Brisbane, QLD 4101 Australia | Fax: +61 7 3858 3199
6 Cordelia Street, South Brisbane, QLD |http://www.apnic.net/
_______________________________________________________________________
NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s)
and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized
review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the
intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all
copies of the original message.
_______________________________________________
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/[email protected]/
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
