Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

A S I A P A C I F I C N E T W O R K I N F O R M A T I O N C E N T R E APNIC Open Policy Meeting Address Policy (Procedures) SIG 1 March 2001.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "A S I A P A C I F I C N E T W O R K I N F O R M A T I O N C E N T R E APNIC Open Policy Meeting Address Policy (Procedures) SIG 1 March 2001."— Presentation transcript:

1 A S I A P A C I F I C N E T W O R K I N F O R M A T I O N C E N T R E APNIC Open Policy Meeting Address Policy (Procedures) SIG 1 March 2001

2 A S I A P A C I F I C N E T W O R K I N F O R M A T I O N C E N T R E For discussion…  Consistent and realistic policy framework for “Portable” allocation and assignment  Presented at the last meeting…  Criteria for first allocation  PI assignment criteria

3 A S I A P A C I F I C N E T W O R K I N F O R M A T I O N C E N T R E Address Management - Objectives  Conservation  Ensuring efficient use of resources, usage-based allocation policies based on demonstrated need  Aggregation  Limiting growth of routable prefixes, through provider- based address aggregation policies  Registration  Ensuring that resource use is registered and that resources are allocated or assigned uniquely  Fairness and Consistency  In the interests of regional and global communities

4 A S I A P A C I F I C N E T W O R K I N F O R M A T I O N C E N T R E Address Management - Assumption  Provider-based addressing  Established with CIDR ( )  Control routing table size through aggregation of customer networks  Minimise PI assignments  Assume minimal multihoming

5 A S I A P A C I F I C N E T W O R K I N F O R M A T I O N C E N T R E Conflicting Objectives  To maximise aggregation, we should make larger allocations  to allow more growth of ISP before further allocation required (which may not be adjacent)  For example: 40,000 addresses needed /16 Room to grow!

6 A S I A P A C I F I C N E T W O R K I N F O R M A T I O N C E N T R E Conflicting Objectives  To maximise conservation, we should make smaller allocations  to suit requirement more accurately  but more likely to cause fragmentation… 40,000 addresses /17 Ouch! /18

7 A S I A P A C I F I C N E T W O R K I N F O R M A T I O N C E N T R E Minimum Allocation  An agreed compromise between the conservation and aggregation objectives  Currently /20 globally  Reduced from /19 in  APNIC minimum previously /22 (mid-1990’s)  Note: Minimum Allocation is also considered to be the “maximum first allocation” under the slow-start policy

8 A S I A P A C I F I C N E T W O R K I N F O R M A T I O N C E N T R E Minimum Allocation  Effectively, an arbitrary “cutoff” to reduce the number of globally routable prefixes  Eliminates networks which are “not worth routing” from the global routing table  Note: does not deny connectivity, but requires PA assignment from upstream

9 A S I A P A C I F I C N E T W O R K I N F O R M A T I O N C E N T R E Definitions  Allocation  A block of address space held by an IR for subsequent allocation or assignment  Not yet used to address any networks  Assignment  A block of address space used to address an operational network  May be provided to LIR customers, or used for an LIR’s infrastructure (‘self-assignment’)

10 A S I A P A C I F I C N E T W O R K I N F O R M A T I O N C E N T R E Definitions  Provider Independent (PI) Assignment  AKA “Portable” address space or assignment  Customer holds addresses independent from ISP  Customer keeps addresses when changing ISP  Address block globally announced  Provider Aggregatable (PA)  Customer uses ISP’s address space  Addresses aggregated within larger announcement  Customer must renumber if changing ISP  AKA “non-Portable” address space/assignment

11 A S I A P A C I F I C N E T W O R K I N F O R M A T I O N C E N T R E Allocation vs PI Assignment  What’s the difference?  Each one:  Consumes address space  Requires a global announcement  May contain “more specifics”  Assigned to arbitrary equipment (don’t care)  Carries arbitrary traffic (don’t care)  i.e. Technically identical in terms of conservation and aggregation

12 A S I A P A C I F I C N E T W O R K I N F O R M A T I O N C E N T R E Allocation vs PI Assignment  Policy implication  Since PA allocation and PI assignment have exactly the same policy “costs”, their criteria should be identical  ARIN’s policy regime achieves this very well  APNIC has inconsistent (also ill-defined) policies for both

13 A S I A P A C I F I C N E T W O R K I N F O R M A T I O N C E N T R E Allocation vs PI Assignment  Question: Should APNIC modify our policies to be more clear and consistent?

14 A S I A P A C I F I C N E T W O R K I N F O R M A T I O N C E N T R E Uniform Policy - ARIN  In ARIN’s region: Minimum allocation = minimum PI assignment  In either case, /20 delegation made when recipient has used /21 from upstream  Hence, strict limitation on demand for allocations  After receiving delegation, recipient must renumber into new address space

15 A S I A P A C I F I C N E T W O R K I N F O R M A T I O N C E N T R E Minimum Allocation Assumptions  Assumption #1: Provider based addressing  “The only routable prefixes come from RIR allocations and assignments”  Reality: Our efforts are being broken by multihoming  Currently, routing table growing exponentially  Proportion of /24 is consistent (55-60%)

16 A S I A P A C I F I C N E T W O R K I N F O R M A T I O N C E N T R E Minimum Allocation Assumptions  Assumption #2: Big = Important  “The shorter the prefix, the more right it has to be routed”  Reality: Other measures of importance may be just as legitimate  Type of service? E.g. “Essential Infrastructure”  Number of customers? Dollar value?  All unrelated to prefix length

17 A S I A P A C I F I C N E T W O R K I N F O R M A T I O N C E N T R E Minimum Allocation - Impacts  Portable address space denied to small ISPs (at least while they are small)  Portable address space not available to small private sites, IDCs, webhosting providers  Multihoming only possible by advertising more specifics (“punching holes”)  But multihoming (and global announcements) are not prevented

18 A S I A P A C I F I C N E T W O R K I N F O R M A T I O N C E N T R E More questions  What is the purpose and value of the minimum allocation in today’s Internet?  But without it…  Can RIR make judgement about who should get PI assignments? (on criteria other than size of the network)  Are RIRs actually responsible for the global routing table anyway?

19 A S I A P A C I F I C N E T W O R K I N F O R M A T I O N C E N T R E Possible next steps  Clarify APNIC procedures  Availability of first allocation should be more predictable to prospective/new members  Criteria for PI Assignment should also be clear and consistent  Criteria should be similar, because technical impact is identical

20 A S I A P A C I F I C N E T W O R K I N F O R M A T I O N C E N T R E Possible next steps  Possible first allocation criteria  Applicant must already have at least /X from upstream provider (ARIN: /22)  Applicant must have managed this address space properly  Applicant must agree to renumber out of upstream space within Y months (ARIN: ?)  Applicant must be multi-homed? (rejected by Policy SIG in Brisbane, October 2000)

21 A S I A P A C I F I C N E T W O R K I N F O R M A T I O N C E N T R E Possible next steps  PI Assignment  Applicant must already have at least /X from upstream provider (ARIN: /22)  Applicant must have managed this address space properly  Applicant must agree to renumber out of upstream space within Y months (ARIN: ?)  Applicant must be multi-homed? (ARIN: yes?)

22 A S I A P A C I F I C N E T W O R K I N F O R M A T I O N C E N T R E Questions  Any change needed to basic assumptions?  Is minimum allocation relevant any more?  Is provider based addressing working, fixable, or broken beyond repair?  Can we do anything for IDCs and content providers who need PI space?  I.e. those excluded by provider-based regime  Go ahead with changes as interim measure?


Download ppt "A S I A P A C I F I C N E T W O R K I N F O R M A T I O N C E N T R E APNIC Open Policy Meeting Address Policy (Procedures) SIG 1 March 2001."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google