From recent discussions in wg-bb@lists.apnic.net

MAEMURA AkinoriJPNIC IP Committee / FTLD

Address Policy SIG at 13th APNIC Open Policy Meeting

Abstract

1. Explaining background

2. Propose slight amendments in policy document and proposed guideline to ensure the service for LIRs

What happened with wg-bb field in Japan?

1. Japan takes an explosion of CATV and ADSL services just like Korea had in 2000

2. Some of Japanese CATV/ADSL operators suffer from sort of shortage in allocated IP addresses

3. Consensus of the last Policy SIG regarding WG-BB was reported in JPNIC Open Policy SIG and got some negative response from Cable/ADSL operators and also some amendment proposals

4. wg-bb had some discussions around it and have some issues to be fixed

Problem with default initial alloc size(1)

Current Consensus•Allow default size of initial allocation as /24

for one CMTS

Problem•CMTS is not appropriate because it can be

have some downstream port

Amendment Proposal•Allow default size of initial allocation as /24

for one DOWNSTREAM port

Problem with default initial alloc size(2)

/24 is sufficient for default size of initial allocation?

•/24 seems to be insufficient especially in case of 30Mbps spec cable, in Japan

•/23?

Problem with shortage of allocated IP addresses

Problems in practice(1)

•Applying subsequent allocation after 80% usage often brings IP address shortage due to extreme rate of customer increase– Especially in case of ADSL services in Japan now

– Policy is documented to allow advanced applications when rest 20% isn’t so big as the assignment request LIR gets

Problem with shortage of allocated IP addresses

Problems in practice(2)•Initial/subsequent allocation size tends to be ins

ufficient, e.g. lasting three months– Due to insufficient allocation size of NIRs, sometimes– Three months can be passed with one month evaluation o

f allocation, one month design by outsourced SIer, one month implementation.

– Sometimes this goes longer and ISPs encounter the shortage.

•Policy says NIR/RIR can allocate amount of “up to ONE year”(in 7.6(current) 9.4(proposed)). We can remove “three months at least”

Problem with shortage of allocated IP addresses•I know this is sort of OPERATIONAL and PRACTICA

L, not Political

•So I’d like to propose to Include in Policy, a statement like

NIR and RIR should allocate IP addresses in sufficient size and allow requests to be submitted sufficiently in advance to prevent LIR’s shortage of allocated IP address.

Summary

1.Proposing an amendment for current guideline

• Allow default size of initial allocation as /24 for one DOWNSTREAM port

• Is sufficient? Is /23 better?

2. Proposing an amendment for current policy document

• RIR/NIR should try to prevent IP address shortage at LIR