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 30th Aug to discuss these proposals. Many Negative opinions were expressed about this proposal. (comment details) - Renumbering is very labor intensive. Some users may stop planning to connect to the /26 IXP because they do not want to renumber in the future. - Who will manage the reverse DNS for longer than /24 prefixes ? If it is managed by APNIC or NIR, it would require a major modification such as system change. - It is hard to imagine that so many new IXPs will be established before IPv4 addresses run out, So it is assumed that the IPv4 that can be saved will be limited. The disadvantages may be greater when compared to the effort and cost for APNICs, IXPs, and IXP users to implement this proposal. Regards, Satoru Tsurumaki / JPOPF Steering Team > > 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] _______________________________________________ SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/[email protected]/ To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
