[AfriNIC-rpd] Re: rpd Digest, Vol 37, Issue 2

Thu May 14 13:19:21 UTC 2009

SM
Which are four additional allocations being proposed during the Exhaustion phase?
Correct, its the four allocations in the exhaustion phase here....because the proposal cuts from the current allocation phase into the Exhaustion phase, the "Additional" word i believe is not misplaced

I would suggest rather - that all IPv4 space requests during the
exhaustion phase will only be accepted once the LIR has been allocated
(or has had an allocation approved) of IPv6 space under the current IPv6
allocation policy.

There is already plenty of IPv6 space that has been allocated but never
used. I think that LIRs MUST have IPv6 space and have a concrete
deployment plan before they can be considered for IPv4 space during the
exhaustion phase.

Graham

We had something along this line initially but  the general consensus during the debate is that as an RIR, we should not dictate on what technology the LIR's deploy.
If they are not interested in v6 deployment, we can only encourage by providing the readily available resource

Vincent

My definitions contains the following.......

Definitions 
-------------- 
(a) Local Internet Registry (LIR) 

A Local Internet Registry (LIR) is an Internet Registry (IR) that receives allocations from an RIR and primarily sub-allocates or assigns address space to 'end-users'. LIRs are generally ISPs. Their customers are other ISPs and possibly end-users. LIRs must be members of an RIR like AfriNIC; which serves the Africa Region and part of the Indian Ocean (Comoros, Madagascar, Mauritius, Seychelles). 

(b) Existing LIR´s An existing LIR is defined as being an organization that has already been assigned or allocated IPv4 address space by AfriNIC 

(c) New LIR´s A new LIR is defined as being an organization which has recently become a member of AfriNIC but has yet to be assigned or allocated any IPv4 address space.

Regards,
Douglas onyango +256(0712)981329

If you are not part of the solution, your are part of the Problem.

--- On Thu, 5/14/09, rpd-request at afrinic.net <rpd-request at afrinic.net> wrote:

From: rpd-request at afrinic.net <rpd-request at afrinic.net>
Subject: rpd Digest, Vol 37, Issue 2
To: rpd at afrinic.net
Date: Thursday, May 14, 2009, 12:02 PM

Send rpd mailing list submissions to
    rpd at afrinic.net

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
    https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
    rpd-request at afrinic.net

You can reach the person managing the list at
    rpd-owner at afrinic.net

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of rpd digest..."

Today's Topics:

   1. Modifications to the 32-bit ASN policy document
      (Ernest - (AfriNIC))
   2. Re: Softlanding Proposal Update (SM)
   3. Re: AfriNIC Policy Proposal Summary (SM)
   4. Re: Softlanding Proposal Update (Leo Vegoda)
   5. Re: Softlanding Proposal Update (Douglas Onyango)
   6. Re: Softlanding Proposal Update (Graham Beneke)
   7. Re: Softlanding Proposal Update (SM)
   8. Re: Softlanding Proposal Update (SM)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 15:48:01 +0400
From: "Ernest - (AfriNIC)" <ernest at afrinic.net>
Subject: [AfriNIC-rpd] Modifications to the 32-bit ASN policy document
To: AfriNIC Resource Policy Discussion List <rpd at afrinic.net>
Message-ID: <4A0AB371.9080401 at afrinic.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Dear Colleagues,

Following the approval and consequent publication of RFC5396, 32-bit
AS Numbers will be represented in their decimal notation. The text
in the "4-byte ASN policy document" still displays 32-bit AS Numbers
with the "asdot+" notation (also mentioned in RFC5396).

The 4-byte ASN policy document has hereby been modified, and the
text follows below. Comments from the community are welcome.

32-bit ASN Policy
-----------------

Date:  22 December 2005
Status:  Implemented
Author:  Geoff Huston, APNIC

1.0 Background
2.0 Nomenclature
3.0 Proposal
4.0 Rationale

*1.0 Background*:
-----------------

Recent studies of AS Number consumption rates indicate that the
existing 16-bit pool of unallocated AS Numbers will be exhausted
sometime in the period between 2010 and 2016, absent of any
concerted efforts of recovery of already-allocated AS Numbers [1]
[2]. Standardisation work in the IETF expanded the AS Number space
to a 32-bit field [3].

It is noted that some advance period may be required by network
operators to undertake the appropriate procedures relating to
support of 32-bit AS Numbers, and while no flag day is required in
the transition to the longer AS Number field, it is recognised that
a prudent course of action is to allow for allocation of these
extended AS Numbers well in advance of an anticipated 16-bit AS
Number exhaustion date.

This policy proposal details a set of actions and associated dates
for RIR AS Number allocation policies to assist in an orderly
transition to use of the 32-bit AS Number space.

The essential attributes of this policy proposal are to facilitate
the ease of transitional arrangements by equipment vendors, network
managers and network operations staff, to provide the industry with
some predictability in terms of dates and associated actions with
respect to registry operational procedures for AS Number allocations.

*2.0 Nomenclature*:
-------------------

AS Numbers will be identified using the "asplain" format as
described in RFC5396. Using the "asplain" method,  all AS numbers
will be identified and represented in their decimal integer notation.

*3.0 Proposal*:
----------------

This policy proposal nominates three dates for changes to the
current AS Number allocation policy for the registry:

On 1 January 2007 the registry will process applications that
specifically request 32-bit only AS Numbers and allocate such AS
Numbers as requested by the applicant. In the absence of any
specific request for a 32-bit only AS Number, a 16-bit only AS
Number will be allocated by the registry.

On 1 January 2009 the registry will process applications that
specifically request 16-bit only AS Numbers and allocate such AS
Numbers as requested by the applicant. In the absence of any
specific request for a 16-bit only AS Number, a 32-bit only AS
Number will be allocated by the registry.

On 1 January 2010 the registry will cease to make any distinction
between 16-bit only AS Numbers and 32-bit only AS Numbers, and will
operate AS Number allocations from an undifferentiated 32-bit AS
Number allocation pool.

No other changes in AS Number allocation policy are implied by this
proposal.

*4.0 Rationale*:
----------------

The essential attributes of this policy proposal are to facilitate
the ease of transitional arrangements by equipment vendors, network
managers and network operations staff, to provide the industry with
some predictability in terms of dates and associated actions with
respect to registry operational procedures for AS Number allocations.

References

[1] Daily AS Number Report: http://www.potaroo.net/tools/asns
[2] ASNs MIA: A Comparison of RIR Statistics and RIS Reality:
    http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0510/wilhelm.html
[3] BGP Support for Four-octet AS Number Space:
    http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4893.txt

------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 07:26:44 -0700
From: SM <sm at resistor.net>
Subject: Re: [AfriNIC-rpd] Softlanding Proposal Update
To: Douglas Onyango <ondouglas at yahoo.com>
Cc: rpd at afrinic.net
Message-ID: <6.2.5.6.2.20090513071251.0294ff10 at resistor.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

Hi Douglas,
At 00:15 13-05-2009, Douglas Onyango wrote:
>This is the most recent Version of the Softlanding Policy Proposal.

[snip]

>(ii) Exhaustion Phase:
>
>During the exhaustion phase, the following allocation and assignment 
>policy for the last /8 IPv4 address will be used:
>a) Instead of the /22 block (1024) addresses allocated in the 
>current policy, the new minimum allocation size of /23 (512 
>addresses) will be allocated to any LIR that requests for IPv4 
>resources. This is also the maximum allocation size, even though 
>LIRs may request for more than a /23. No LIR may get more than 4 
>additional allocations once the Exhaustion phase has begun.

Which are four additional allocations being proposed during the 
Exhaustion phase?

>b) Together with the v4 allocation, AfriNIC shall allocate an IPv6 
>address block in compliance with the current IPv6 allocation policy 
>(<http://www.afrinic.net/docs/policies/afpol-v6200407-000.htm>http://www.afrinic.net/docs/policies/afpol-v6200407-000.htm) 
>to the LIR (in case it doesn't have any).

I don't see why this is being proposed as part of a soft landing 
proposal.  I suggest removing any mention of IPv6 as that is already 
covered under the current IPv6 allocation policy.

Regards,
-sm 

------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 07:55:51 -0700
From: SM <sm at resistor.net>
Subject: Re: [AfriNIC-rpd] AfriNIC Policy Proposal Summary
To: AfriNIC RPD ML <rpd at afrinic.net>
Message-ID: <6.2.5.6.2.20090513074039.034c6658 at resistor.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

At 05:50 15-04-2009, Vincent Ngundi wrote:
>Policy proposal : IPv6 Allocations to Non-Profit Networks
>Proposal Date : 13 Jan 2009
>Scope : Regional proposal
>afpol-v6200901 
><<http://www.afrinic.net/docs/policies/afpol-v6200901.htm>http://www.afrinic.net/docs/policies/afpol-v6200901.htm>
>
>Summary:
>This policy seeks to make it as easy as possible for non-profit 
>entities to obtain a /48 PI IPv6 addressing resources from AfriNIC 
>and drive the deployment of and demand for IPv6 services through 
>this in Africa.

The Definitions section has an "(a)" only.

The definition mentions legal responsibility within a country or 
region.  I suggest removing "region" as ths proposed policy is for 
local geographical areas only.

Does the organisation have to justify the need for the IPv6 address space?

The abstract mentions a membership category.  There is no mention of 
that or what fee structure is applicable in the text that follows.

Regards,
-sm 

------------------------------

Message: 4
Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 13:23:52 -0700
From: Leo Vegoda <leo.vegoda at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [AfriNIC-rpd] Softlanding Proposal Update
To: "ondouglas at yahoo.com" <ondouglas at yahoo.com>, "rpd at afrinic.net"
    <rpd at afrinic.net>
Message-ID: <C6307A68.2910D%leo.vegoda at icann.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

Hi Douglas,

Thank you for sharing this.

I am not sure if I have understood the proposal properly and would be
grateful if you could please clarify some things for me.

On 13/05/2009 12:15, "Douglas Onyango" <ondouglas at yahoo.com> wrote:

[...]

> During the exhaustion phase, the following allocation and assignment policy
> for the last /8 IPv4 address will be used:

Does this policy only apply to the /8 to be allocated to AfriNIC under the
recently ratified global policy, or does it apply to other IPv4 space held
by AfriNIC at that time?

> a) Instead of the /22 block (1024) addresses allocated in the current policy,
> the new minimum allocation size of /23 (512 addresses) will be allocated to
> any LIR that requests for IPv4 resources. This is also the maximum allocation
> size, even though LIRs may request for more than a /23. No LIR may get more
> than 4 additional allocations once the Exhaustion phase has begun.

Does this mean that a new LIR may receive one initial allocation plus four
additional allocations, or is it a maximum of four /23 allocations in total?

I am not sure how many LIRs you would like to benefit from this policy. It
would be good to check the proposal against the current and projected
AfriNIC membership numbers to see whether it is possible to be more
generous.

Kind regards,

Leo Vegoda

------------------------------

Message: 5
Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 00:07:54 -0700 (PDT)
From: Douglas Onyango <ondouglas at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [AfriNIC-rpd] Softlanding Proposal Update
To: SM <sm at resistor.net>
Cc: rpd at afrinic.net
Message-ID: <472990.49359.qm at web52101.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

SM,
Not sure i fully understood your first question.

This policy is meant to help in the transition from v4 to v6, and as such every initiative to help people move in the direction of v6 would be a good one. one of them is availing the addresses (if they don't have any)

Regards,
Douglas onyango +256(0712)981329

If you are not part of the solution, your are part of the Problem.

--- On Wed, 5/13/09, SM <sm at resistor.net> wrote:

From: SM <sm at resistor.net>
Subject: Re: [AfriNIC-rpd] Softlanding Proposal Update
To: "Douglas Onyango" <ondouglas at yahoo.com>
Cc: rpd at afrinic.net
Date: Wednesday, May 13, 2009, 5:26 PM

Hi Douglas,
At 00:15 13-05-2009, Douglas Onyango wrote:
> This is the most recent Version of the Softlanding Policy Proposal.

[snip]

> (ii) Exhaustion Phase:
> 
> During the exhaustion phase, the following allocation and assignment policy for the last /8 IPv4 address will be used:
> a) Instead of the /22 block (1024) addresses allocated in the current policy, the new minimum allocation size of /23 (512 addresses) will be allocated to any LIR that requests for IPv4 resources. This is also the maximum allocation size, even though LIRs may request for more than a /23. No LIR may get more than 4 additional allocations once the Exhaustion phase has begun.

Which are four additional allocations being proposed during the Exhaustion phase?

> b) Together with the v4 allocation, AfriNIC shall allocate an IPv6 address block in compliance with the current IPv6 allocation policy (<http://www.afrinic.net/docs/policies/afpol-v6200407-000.htm>http://www.afrinic.net/docs/policies/afpol-v6200407-000.htm) to the LIR (in case it doesn't have any).

I don't see why this is being proposed as part of a soft landing proposal.  I suggest removing any mention of IPv6 as that is already covered under the current IPv6 allocation policy.

Regards,
-sm 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20090514/d1a0600c/attachment-0001.htm

------------------------------

Message: 6
Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 10:07:41 +0200
From: Graham Beneke <graham-ml at apolix.co.za>
Subject: Re: [AfriNIC-rpd] Softlanding Proposal Update
To: AfriNIC Resource Policy Discussion List <rpd at afrinic.net>
Message-ID: <4A0BD14D.80004 at apolix.co.za>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Hi Douglas

My thoughts inline:

Douglas Onyango wrote:
> a) Instead of the /22 block (1024) addresses allocated in the current
> policy, the new minimum allocation size of /23 (512 addresses) will be
> allocated to any LIR that requests for IPv4 resources. This is also the
> maximum allocation size, even though LIRs may request for more than a
> /23. No LIR may get more than 4 additional allocations once the
> Exhaustion phase has begun.

This is extremely restrictive and I think that we should rather just be
changing the minimum and maximum allocation sizes but keep it as a range:

On the one hand - a network that is running full native IPv6 will only
need a handful of IPv4 addresses to provide their core services dual
stacked and provide a NAT gateway to their users. A /24 is sufficient
for global BGP routability and LIRs should be able to request this if
this is all they require during the exhaustion phase.

On the other hand - there are a number of operators in the AfiNIC region
who use about /21 for just their backbone networks.

I would suggest that we define the minimum allocation as /24 and the
maximum allocation as /20 (this figure is up for discussion).

As Leo mentione - we should be considering the number of AfriNIC LIRs
when setting the limit on the amount of address space each may receive.
Perhaps one of the AfriNIC staff could provide details of the current
number of LIRs and the growth trend over the recent years.

> b) Together with the v4 allocation, AfriNIC shall allocate an IPv6
> address block in compliance with the current IPv6 allocation policy
> (http://www.afrinic.net/docs/policies/afpol-v6200407-000.htm) to the LIR
> (in case it doesn't have any).

I think that this puts the focus on the wrong aspects. We are trying to
drive IPv6 adoption are we not? It should not be an afterthought once
the IPv4 space has been allocated.

I would suggest rather - that all IPv4 space requests during the
exhaustion phase will only be accepted once the LIR has been allocated
(or has had an allocation approved) of IPv6 space under the current IPv6
allocation policy.

There is already plenty of IPv6 space that has been allocated but never
used. I think that LIRs MUST have IPv6 space and have a concrete
deployment plan before they can be considered for IPv4 space during the
exhaustion phase.

regards
-- 
Graham Beneke
Apolix Internet Services
E-Mail/MSN/Jabber: graham at apolix.co.za   Skype: grbeneke
VoIP: 087-750-5696                       Cell: 082-432-1873
http://www.apolix.co.za/

------------------------------

Message: 7
Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 01:27:11 -0700
From: SM <sm at resistor.net>
Subject: Re: [AfriNIC-rpd] Softlanding Proposal Update
To: Douglas Onyango <ondouglas at yahoo.com>
Cc: rpd at afrinic.net
Message-ID: <6.2.5.6.2.20090514001415.028bc778 at resistor.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

Hi Douglas,
At 00:07 14-05-2009, Douglas Onyango wrote:
>Not sure i fully understood your first question.

IPv4 is a public resource which AfriNIC manages on behalf of its 
constituents.  As we move towards the IPv4 address exhaustion, there 
will be a scarcity for IPv4 addresses.  The proposal is to ensure a 
fair allocation from the limited pool of IPv4 addresses.  Without 
that, a large network or country can end up with a larger slice of 
the pool.  This will have a negative impact on countries or networks 
that experience a slower growth.

There are a few cable links currently being deployed on the 
continent.  Once the infrastructure is there, we may see more demand 
for IP address space within these countries.  It's only when AfriNIC 
turns down their IPv4 allocation request that they will understand 
the consequences of this proposed policy.  It will be too late to 
overturn the policy once the IPv4 address pool is exhausted.

Before devising a policy for managing the last /8 IPv4 address pool, 
we should review IPv4 address usage in the region over the last years 
and do a projection to find out how long the IPv4 address pool will 
last.  We should take into account the number of LIRs and see that 
there is a fair distribution.

Your proposal specifies that a LIR can be allocated a /23 (IPv4 
maximum allocation size) and four additional /23.  My question is 
about whether the aggregate allocation (one + four) will allow 
equitable distribution of IPv4 addresses among LIRs.  To put it 
differently, how did you reach these numbers?

>This policy is meant to help in the transition from v4 to v6, and as 
>such every initiative to help people move in the direction of v6 
>would be a good one. one of them is availing the addresses (if they 
>don't have any)

Getting people to adopt IPv6 is a good initiative.  But that should 
not turn out into dishing out IP address space if the assignee does 
not justify the request.  If members do not have any IPv6 address 
space, it is generally because:

  (i) they are not implementing IPv6 on their network

  (ii) they plan to extend IPv4 lifetime through by using NAT

An IPv6 address allocation won't change that.  If you want to help 
the transition from IPv4 to IPv6, you can specify that the member 
shows a migration plan.  However, I don't think that it's a good 
strategy as AfriNIC cannot tell people how they should run their networks.

Regards,
-sm 

------------------------------

Message: 8
Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 01:50:14 -0700
From: SM <sm at resistor.net>
Subject: Re: [AfriNIC-rpd] Softlanding Proposal Update
To: Graham Beneke <graham-ml at apolix.co.za>
Cc: AfriNIC Resource Policy Discussion List <rpd at afrinic.net>
Message-ID: <6.2.5.6.2.20090514013414.032f3890 at resistor.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

Hi Graham,

I won't respond to the first part of your message for now.

At 01:07 14-05-2009, Graham Beneke wrote:
>I think that this puts the focus on the wrong aspects. We are trying to
>drive IPv6 adoption are we not? It should not be an afterthought once
>the IPv4 space has been allocated.

Let's not mix evangelisation and operational matters.  It's up to the 
members to determine whether they want to use this proposal to drive 
IPv6 adoption.  It's not up to me to determine the financial impact. :-)

>I would suggest rather - that all IPv4 space requests during the
>exhaustion phase will only be accepted once the LIR has been allocated
>(or has had an allocation approved) of IPv6 space under the current IPv6
>allocation policy.
>
>There is already plenty of IPv6 space that has been allocated but never
>used. I think that LIRs MUST have IPv6 space and have a concrete
>deployment plan before they can be considered for IPv4 space during the
>exhaustion phase.

That's one of the questions item (b) may have to address.

Regards,
-sm 

------------------------------

_______________________________________________
rpd mailing list
rpd at afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd

End of rpd Digest, Vol 37, Issue 2
**********************************

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20090514/fa25eab3/attachment.html>