APNIC Open Address Policy Meeting

1. APNIC Open Address Policy Meeting Address Policy SIG October 26th, Brisbane

2. Proposal Definition • A proposal for an amended ‘Provider Independent’ (PI) address assignment policy

3. Background • CIDR promotes hierarchical addressing • Through ‘Provider Aggregatable’ assignments • PI assignments discouraged • Requests for PI assignments • For redundancy, resiliency and load sharing • Due to lack of knowledge of CIDR • Frequently small, usually multi-homed • Routing table concerns • Increase of 36% in routing table size in last 12 months • Over 50% announcements comprise /24’s

4. Motivation • APNIC current policy • Assign PI to ‘Non-Member’ with one-time payment of US$8,192 (formal) • Assign PI through existing members without charge to both applicant and member (informal) • No contract • Inconsistent across membership • APNIC needs a clearer policy framework when assigning Provider Independent (PI) addresses • Issue raised at SIG in Korea • No input but consensus for change, hence proposal

5. Current Status - Other RIRs • RIPE NCC • Assign PI to end-users only through members • No contract • Criteria: end-users must give reasons • No minimum assignment size, no sub-assignments • ARIN • Assign PI to end-users directly • Requestors sign ‘Registration Services’ contract • Criteria: multi-homed and should have utilised a /21 and demonstrate need for /20 in next 3 months • No sub-assignments

6. Discussion - Technical • Type of connectivity? • eBGP mandatory criteria? • Proposal: multi-homed (eBGP) to different ISPs or ‘planning to multi-home’ • Rationale: Promotes hierarchical routing • Size of site? • How large should the site be for a PI assignment? • Proposal: ‘sufficiently large’ • Utilised a /21 from their upstream ISP or able to demonstrate they plan to use a /21 in 3 months and a /20 in a year • Rationale: Follows minimum practical allocation policy

7. Discussion - Administrative • Contractual • Proposal: To establish a contractual relationship with end user • Rationale: Lack of contract makes it difficult to manage, need to provide in-addr and whois services • Consistency • Proposal: NIRs should implement same policies Assignments made by APNIC through NIRs. • Rationale: APNIC and NIRs may have different policies leading to inconsistency across region

8. Discussion - Financial • Consistency • With fee structure for allocation of the same size (/20) • One time fee with maintenance fees • ‘Non-member’ income • Subject to company taxation (estimated at 34%) • Proposed • Up to and including a /19 USD $ 2500 + 34% tax • > than a /19 and = a /16 USD $ 5000 + 34% tax • > than a /16 USD $10000 + 34% tax • Admin fee $1000 and annual 10% maintenance fee

9. Summary and Recommendations • New PI policy proposed • Organisation should be multi-homed or plan to be within 3 months • Have used a /21; or plan to use /21 in 3 months and a /20 in a year • Pay the fee and the maintenance fees • Sign a contract with APNIC • Accept space from 202/7 • No sub-assignments outside organisation • Expectation to be routed as aggregate • NIRs implement same policies through APNIC

10. Implementation • Implementation date • 3 months from approval from membership • Discontinue formal and informal PI policies • APNIC to prepare documents • PI contract • Fee structure document • Update forms and web-site • Inform the community with mailing lists & web

11. Questions?