|
apnic-086-v011.txt |
|
apnic-124-v001.txt |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
———————————————————————– |
|
———————————————————————– |
|
|
APNIC Document identity |
|
APNIC Document identity |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Title: Policies for IPv4 address space management in the Asia |
|
Title: Policies for IPv4 address space management in the Asia |
|
|
Pacific region |
|
Pacific region |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Short title: add-manage-policy |
|
Short title: add-manage-policy |
|
|
|
Document ref: APNIC-086 |
|
Document ref: APNIC-124 |
|
|
Version: 011 |
|
Version: 001 |
|
|
Date of original publication: 21 December 2001 |
|
Date of original publication: 9 May 2011 |
|
|
Date of this version: 8 November 2010 |
|
Date of this version: 9 May 2011 |
|
|
Review scheduled: n/a |
|
Review scheduled: n/a |
|
|
|
Obsoletes: Previous versions |
|
Obsoletes: n/a |
|
|
Status: obsolete |
|
Status: Obsolete |
|
|
Comments: This document was superseded by |
|
Comments: n/a |
|
|
apnic-124-v001 and apnic-125-v001 |
|
|
|
|
———————————————————————- |
|
———————————————————————- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Policies for IPv4 address space management in the Asia Pacific region |
|
Table of contents |
|
|
|
|
—————– |
|
|
About this document |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This document represents current APNIC practices and policies for IPv4 |
|
|
|
|
address space. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This document should be read in conjunction with other APNIC documents, |
|
|
|
|
including those dealing with membership and fees. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Table of contents |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Part 1: Background, definitions, goals, and environment |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. Introduction |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2. Scope |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3. Hierarchy of IPv4 address space distribution |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4. Definitions |
|
|
|
|
4.1 Internet Registry (IR) |
|
|
|
|
4.1.1 Regional Internet Registry (RIR) |
|
|
|
|
4.1.2 National Internet Registry (NIR) |
|
|
|
|
4.1.3 Local Internet Registry (LIR) |
|
|
|
|
4.2 Internet Exchange Point |
|
|
|
|
4.3 Address space |
|
|
|
|
4.4 Allocated and Assigned address space |
|
|
|
|
4.4.1 Allocated |
|
|
|
|
4.4.2 Assigned |
|
|
|
|
4.5 Current resources |
|
|
|
|
4.6 Historical resources |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5. Goals of address space management |
|
|
|
|
5.1 Goals |
|
|
|
|
5.1.1 Uniqueness |
|
|
|
|
5.1.2 Registration |
|
|
|
|
5.1.3 Aggregation |
|
|
|
|
5.1.4 Conservation |
|
|
|
|
5.1.5 Fairness |
|
|
|
|
5.2 Conflict of goals |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6. Policy environment |
|
|
|
|
6.1 Routability |
|
|
|
|
6.2 Internet growth rates |
|
|
|
|
6.3 Collective responsibility |
|
|
|
|
6.4 Impartiality |
|
|
|
|
6.5 Varying levels of expertise |
|
|
|
|
6.6 Address ownership |
|
|
|
|
6.7 Address stockpiling |
|
|
|
|
6.8 Evaluations to be based on best practice |
|
|
|
|
6.9 Private address space |
|
|
|
|
6.10 Minimum practical allocations |
|
|
|
|
6.11 Documentation |
|
|
|
|
6.12 Confidentiality |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Part 2: Policies for address space management |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7. General policy framework |
|
|
|
|
7.1 IRs to adopt consistent address space management |
|
|
|
|
policies |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8 Address requests |
|
|
|
|
8.1 Processing of requests dependent on correct |
|
|
|
|
documentation |
|
|
|
|
8.2 Security and confidentiality |
|
|
|
|
8.3 Equitable processing of requests |
|
|
|
|
8.4 General requirements for allocation requests |
|
|
|
|
8.5 Organizations seeking address space from multiple IRs |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9. Address allocation |
|
|
|
|
9.1 Address space license |
|
|
|
|
9.2 Slow start mechanism |
|
|
|
|
9.2.1 Exceptions to slow start |
|
|
|
|
9.3 Criteria for initial allocation |
|
|
|
|
9.4 Criteria for subsequent allocations |
|
|
|
|
9.4.1 No guarantee of contiguous allocations |
|
|
|
|
9.5 Prior allocations to be used first |
|
|
|
|
9.5.1 Special circumstances – large assignments |
|
|
|
|
9.6 Reservations not supported |
|
|
|
|
9.7 Address aggregation |
|
|
|
|
9.8 Validity of allocations and assignments |
|
|
|
|
9.9 Transfer of address space |
|
|
|
|
9.10 Distribution of the final /8 worth of space in the |
|
|
|
|
unallocated APNIC IPv4 address pool |
|
|
|
|
9.10.1 Allocations to LIRs |
|
|
|
|
9.10.2 Allocations for future uses |
|
|
|
|
9.10.3 Transfers of IPv4 between APNIC account holders |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10. LIR address space management |
|
|
|
|
10.1 Assignment window for LIRs |
|
|
|
|
10.2 Assignment usage estimates |
|
|
|
|
10.3 Sub-allocations by LIRs |
|
|
|
|
10.3.1 Effect of sub-allocations on LIR‘s usage rate |
|
|
|
|
10.4 Registration requirements |
|
|
|
|
10.4.1 Updating registration details |
|
|
|
|
10.4.2 Registering contact persons |
|
|
|
|
10.5 Responsibility to maintain in-addr.arpa records |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11. Assignments and exchanges |
|
|
|
|
11.1 Small multihoming assignments |
|
|
|
|
11.2 Internet Exchange Points |
|
|
|
|
11.3 Critical infrastructure |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12. Closure of LIRs |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
13. Request evaluation guidelines |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Part 1: Background, definitions, goals, and environment |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
_______________________________________________________________________ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. Introduction |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
APNIC (the Asia Pacific Network Information Centre) is the Regional |
|
|
|
|
Internet Registry for the Asia Pacific region, responsible for |
|
|
|
|
distributing public Internet address space and related resources in the |
|
|
|
|
region and for coordinating the development and implementation of |
|
|
|
|
policies to manage those resources. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The policies described in this document have been developed by the |
|
|
|
|
Internet community of the Asia Pacific region through a consensus |
|
|
|
|
process facilitated by APNIC. They are to be implemented by APNIC and |
|
|
|
|
by the National Internet Registries and the Local Internet Registries |
|
|
|
|
throughout the region. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2. Scope |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This document describes policies for the responsible management of |
|
|
|
|
global IPv4 public address space in the Asia Pacific region. |
|
|
|
|
Specifically, this document focuses on the goals, assumptions, and |
|
|
|
|
policies relating to the allocation and assignment of IPv4 address |
|
|
|
|
space. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This document does not describe specific addressing policies related to |
|
|
|
|
IPv6, Multicast, Private Address Space, or Autonomous System numbers. |
|
|
|
|
It should be read in conjunction with other APNIC documents, including |
|
|
|
|
those dealing with membership and fees. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3. Hierarchy of IPv4 address space distribution |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
IPv4 addresses are distributed in accordance with the hierarchical |
|
|
|
|
structure described in RFC2050, represented simply in fig.1. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[Figure 1: Diagram of distribution hierarchy] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
+——–+ |
|
|
|
|
| IANA | |
|
|
|
|
+——–+ |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
+———–+———–+———–+———–+ |
|
|
|
|
| | | | | |
|
|
|
|
+——–+ +——–+ +——–+ +——–+ +——–+ |
|
|
|
|
| ARIN | |RIPE NCC| | APNIC | | LACNIC | | AfriNIC| |
|
|
|
|
+——–+ +——–+ +——–+ +——–+ +——–+ |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
+————–+————-+ |
|
|
|
|
| | |
|
|
|
|
+——+ | |
|
|
|
|
| NIR | | National Internet |
|
|
|
|
+——+ | Registries |
|
|
|
|
| | |
|
|
|
|
+——+–+——+ | |
|
|
|
|
| | | | Local Internet |
|
|
|
|
+——+ | | +——+ Registries |
|
|
|
|
| LIR | | | | LIR | |
|
|
|
|
+——+ | | +——+ |
|
|
|
|
| | | | |
|
|
|
|
+—–+ | | +—–+—–+ |
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | |
|
|
|
|
+——+ | +——+ | +——+ | Internet Service |
|
|
|
|
| ISP | | | ISP | | | ISP | | Providers |
|
|
|
|
+——+ | +——+ | +——+ | |
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | |
|
|
|
|
+—-+ +—-+ +—-+ +—-+ +—-+ +—-+ End-users |
|
|
|
|
| EU | | EU | | EU | | EU | | EU | | EU | |
|
|
|
|
+—-+ +—-+ +—-+ +—-+ +—-+ +—-+ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In this hierarchy, IANA allocates address space to APNIC,to be |
|
|
|
|
redistributed throughout the Asia Pacific region. APNIC allocates |
|
|
|
|
address space to Internet Registries (IRs) and also delegates to them |
|
|
|
|
the authority to make assignments and allocations. In some cases APNIC |
|
|
|
|
assigns address space to end users. National and Local IRs allocate and |
|
|
|
|
assign address space to their members and customers under the guidance |
|
|
|
|
of APNIC and in accordance with the policies and procedures described |
|
|
|
|
in this document. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4. Definitions |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The following terms and definitions are used in this document. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4.1 Internet Registry (IR) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
An Internet Registry (IR) is an organization that is |
|
|
|
|
responsible for distributing IP address space to its members or |
|
|
|
|
customers and for registering those distributions. IRs are |
|
|
|
|
classified according to their primary function and territorial |
|
|
|
|
scope within the hierarchical structure depicted in fig.1 |
|
|
|
|
above. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
IRs include: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* APNIC and other Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) |
|
|
|
|
* National Internet Registries (NIRs) |
|
|
|
|
* Local Internet Registries (LIRs), unless the specific context |
|
|
|
|
of the reference requires otherwise. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4.1.1 Regional Internet Registry (RIR) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) are established under the |
|
|
|
|
authority of IANA to serve and represent large geographical |
|
|
|
|
regions. Their primary role is to manage, distribute, and |
|
|
|
|
register public Internet address space within their respective |
|
|
|
|
regions. Currently, there are four RIRs: APNIC, RIPE NCC, |
|
|
|
|
LACNIC, and ARIN, although a small number of additional RIRs |
|
|
|
|
may be established in the future. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4.1.2 National Internet Registry (NIR) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A National Internet Registry (NIR) primarily allocates address |
|
|
|
|
space to its members or constituents, which are generally LIRs |
|
|
|
|
organized at a national level. NIRs are expected to apply |
|
|
|
|
their policies and procedures fairly and equitably to all |
|
|
|
|
members of their constituency. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The policies in this document apply to NIRs; however, this |
|
|
|
|
document does not describe the entire roles and |
|
|
|
|
responsibilities of NIRs with respect to their formal |
|
|
|
|
relationship with APNIC. Such roles and responsibilities may |
|
|
|
|
be described in other documents and agreements, subject to |
|
|
|
|
APNIC Document review procedures. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4.1.3 Local Internet Registry (LIR) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A Local Internet Registry (LIR) is generally an Internet |
|
|
|
|
Service Provider (ISP), and may assign address space to its |
|
|
|
|
own network infrastructure and to users of its network |
|
|
|
|
services. LIR customers may be other “downstream” ISPs, which |
|
|
|
|
further assign address space to their own customers. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4.2 Internet Exchange Point |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
An Internet Exchange Point (IX or IXP) is a layer 1 and layer 2 |
|
|
|
|
network structure that interconnects three or more Autonomous |
|
|
|
|
Systems (AS) for the purpose of Internet traffic interchange. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4.3 Address space |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In this document, address space means public IPv4 address |
|
|
|
|
ranges, excluding multicast addresses and private addresses |
|
|
|
|
defined by RFC1918. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4.4 Allocated and Assigned address space |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the purposes of understanding APNIC address space policies, |
|
|
|
|
it is important to make a clear distinction between the terms |
|
|
|
|
“allocated” and “assigned”. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4.4.1 Allocated |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Allocated address space is address space that is distributed to |
|
|
|
|
IRs or other organizations for the purpose of subsequent |
|
|
|
|
distribution by them. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4.4.2 Assigned |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Assigned address space is address space that is delegated to an |
|
|
|
|
ISP or end-user, for specific use within the Internet |
|
|
|
|
infrastructure they operate. Assignments must only be made for |
|
|
|
|
specific, documented purposes and may not be sub-assigned. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4.5 Current resources |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current resources are Internet resources registered by APNIC |
|
|
|
|
under explicit policies and agreements. Resources include |
|
|
|
|
public IPv4 and IPv6 addresses, Autonomous System numbers, and |
|
|
|
|
reverse DNS delegations. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4.6 Historical resources |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Historical resources are Internet resources registered under |
|
|
|
|
early registry policies without formal agreements and include: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Registrations transferred to APNIC as part of the AUNIC to |
|
|
|
|
APNIC migration |
|
|
|
|
* Registrations transferred as part of the Early Registration |
|
|
|
|
Transfer (ERX) project |
|
|
|
|
* Historical APNIC resources. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For more information on historical resources, see: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Policies for historical Internet resources in the APNIC Whois |
|
|
|
|
Database |
|
|
|
|
http://www.apnic.net/policies/historical-resource-policies |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5. Goals of address space management |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5.1 Goals |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The goals described here were formulated by the Internet |
|
|
|
|
community and reflect the mutual interest of all members of |
|
|
|
|
that community in ensuring that the Internet is able to |
|
|
|
|
function and grow to the maximum extent possible. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is APNIC’s primary duty, as a custodian of a public |
|
|
|
|
resource, to ensure that these goals are met within the Asia |
|
|
|
|
Pacific region. APNIC does this by providing guidance and |
|
|
|
|
leadership in developing and implementing responsible policies |
|
|
|
|
and practices. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is the responsibility of every NIR and LIR to also ensure |
|
|
|
|
that these goals are met within their respective regions and |
|
|
|
|
communities. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5.1.1 Uniqueness |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Every assignment and allocation of address space must be |
|
|
|
|
guaranteed as globally unique. This is an absolute requirement |
|
|
|
|
for ensuring that every public host on the Internet can be |
|
|
|
|
uniquely identified. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5.1.2 Registration |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All assignments and allocations made directly by APNIC to its |
|
|
|
|
members and customers must be registered in a publicly |
|
|
|
|
accessible database. This is necessary to ensure uniqueness and |
|
|
|
|
to provide information for Internet troubleshooting at all |
|
|
|
|
levels. It also reflects the expectation of the Internet |
|
|
|
|
community that custodians of these public resources should be |
|
|
|
|
identifiable. Organizations that receive an allocation from |
|
|
|
|
APNIC can choose whether or not their customer assignment |
|
|
|
|
registrations should be publicly available. If the organization |
|
|
|
|
does not indicate a choice, or it chooses to hide its customer |
|
|
|
|
assignment registrations, then those records will not be |
|
|
|
|
visible in the public whois database. Whois queries on these |
|
|
|
|
records will return details of the allocation. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5.1.3 Aggregation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wherever possible, address space should be distributed in a |
|
|
|
|
hierarchical manner, according to the topology of network |
|
|
|
|
infrastructure. This is necessary to permit the aggregation of |
|
|
|
|
routing information by ISPs, and to limit the expansion of |
|
|
|
|
Internet routing tables. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5.1.4 Conservation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To maximize the lifetime of the available resource, address |
|
|
|
|
space must be distributed according to actual need and for |
|
|
|
|
immediate use. Stockpiling address space and maintaining |
|
|
|
|
reservations are contrary to this goal. Conservation also |
|
|
|
|
implies efficiency. Therefore, all users of address space |
|
|
|
|
should adopt techniques such as Variable Length Subnet Masking |
|
|
|
|
(VLSM) and appropriate technologies that ensure the address |
|
|
|
|
space is not used wastefully. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5.1.5 Fairness |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All policies and practices relating to the use of address space |
|
|
|
|
should apply fairly and equitably to all existing and potential |
|
|
|
|
members of the Internet community, regardless of their |
|
|
|
|
location, nationality, size, or any other factor. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5.2 Conflict of goals |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The goals of conservation and aggregation often conflict with |
|
|
|
|
each other. Also, some or all of the goals may occasionally |
|
|
|
|
conflict with the interests of individual IRs or end-users. |
|
|
|
|
Therefore, IRs evaluating requests for address space must |
|
|
|
|
carefully analyse all relevant considerations and try to |
|
|
|
|
balance the needs of the requestor with the needs of the |
|
|
|
|
Internet community as a whole. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This document is intended to help IRs perform their role in |
|
|
|
|
consistent and equitable ways. IRs must maintain full |
|
|
|
|
documentation of and transparency within the decision making |
|
|
|
|
process. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6. Policy environment |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Apart from the goals described in Section 5, other factors influence |
|
|
|
|
the APNIC policy environment. These other factors include the |
|
|
|
|
expectations of the Internet community, current administrative |
|
|
|
|
structures, and technological constraints. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The policy environment may change quickly or in unpredictable ways, so |
|
|
|
|
APNIC, on behalf of its members, must monitor any changes and |
|
|
|
|
communicate any policy implications. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This Section describes the factors in the current operating environment |
|
|
|
|
that have been most important in determining current APNIC policies. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6.1 Routability |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The routability of address space throughout the Internet can |
|
|
|
|
never be guaranteed by any single organization. To reduce the |
|
|
|
|
number of globally advertised routes, ISPs may implement route |
|
|
|
|
filtering policies based on prefix length. As a result, small |
|
|
|
|
portable assignments are the most likely to suffer routability |
|
|
|
|
problems. Therefore, APNIC policies encourage those seeking |
|
|
|
|
address space to request from upstream providers rather than |
|
|
|
|
from APNIC directly. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6.2 Internet growth rates |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Early strategies for distributing address space did not |
|
|
|
|
anticipate the rapid growth of the Internet and the scaling |
|
|
|
|
problems that followed, affecting both the amount of address |
|
|
|
|
space available and routing. Therefore, APNIC policies take |
|
|
|
|
account of past experience and seek to manage address space in |
|
|
|
|
a way that will maximize future scaling of the Internet. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6.3 Collective responsibility |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
APNIC shares with its members and their customers a collective |
|
|
|
|
responsibility to ensure manageable and scalable Internet |
|
|
|
|
growth and to make decisions consistent with the goals |
|
|
|
|
described in Section 5. Therefore, APNIC policies and |
|
|
|
|
procedures are developed by APNIC members and the broader |
|
|
|
|
Internet community as a whole, in the common interest of those |
|
|
|
|
communities. In implementing policies, APNIC and its members |
|
|
|
|
rely on an implicit trust that delegated responsibilities are |
|
|
|
|
carried out in good faith. Specifically, APNIC must trust that |
|
|
|
|
the information gathered from members during the request |
|
|
|
|
process is genuine and accurate. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6.4 Impartiality |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
APNIC represents the interests of the Internet community in |
|
|
|
|
general and the Internet community of the Asia Pacific region |
|
|
|
|
in particular. Therefore, APNIC must apply its policies fairly |
|
|
|
|
and equitably, without regard to an organization’s size, |
|
|
|
|
geographic location, or any other factor. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6.5 Varying levels of expertise |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Different IRs and end users have varying levels of experience |
|
|
|
|
and expertise. APNIC policies allow for varying levels of |
|
|
|
|
assistance and monitoring, appropriate to ensure a consistent |
|
|
|
|
approach to address space management throughout the AP Internet |
|
|
|
|
community. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6.6 Address ownership |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Internet community regards address space as a scarce, |
|
|
|
|
public resource that should only be distributed according to |
|
|
|
|
demonstrated need. ISPs and other organizations and individuals |
|
|
|
|
that use address space are considered “custodians” rather than |
|
|
|
|
“owners” of the resource. As address space becomes more scarce, |
|
|
|
|
address space management policies may be adjusted by the |
|
|
|
|
community. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6.7 Address stockpiling |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stockpiling addresses is harmful to the goals of conservation |
|
|
|
|
and fairness. APNIC policies must prevent stockpiling and |
|
|
|
|
ensure efficient deployment of address space on the basis of |
|
|
|
|
immediate demonstrated need. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6.8 Evaluations to be based on best practice |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
APNIC should ensure that address space holders adopt current |
|
|
|
|
best practice in management of the resources they use. If |
|
|
|
|
appropriate technologies exist for improved management of |
|
|
|
|
address space in particular situations, the community expects |
|
|
|
|
that those technologies should be used. APNIC consults with its |
|
|
|
|
members and the broader Internet community to define and |
|
|
|
|
develop current best practice recommendations relating to |
|
|
|
|
Internet addressing technologies and techniques. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6.9 Private address space |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The use of private address space may be appropriate for |
|
|
|
|
addressing networks that are connected to the Internet via a |
|
|
|
|
firewall, and where there are not technical requirements for |
|
|
|
|
the use of public address space. In general, private address |
|
|
|
|
space should be used for networks not connected to the Internet. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6.10 Minimum practical allocations |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Because the goals of aggregation and conservation conflict, it |
|
|
|
|
is necessary to apply a minimum practical size for address |
|
|
|
|
space allocations. This minimum allocation size may be reviewed |
|
|
|
|
from time to time, as technologies and administrative |
|
|
|
|
conditions evolve. The current minimum practical allocation is |
|
|
|
|
a /22 (1024 addresses). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6.11 Documentation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To properly evaluate requests, IRs must carefully examine all |
|
|
|
|
relevant documentation relating to the networks in question. |
|
|
|
|
This documentation may include: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* network engineering plans |
|
|
|
|
* subnetting plans |
|
|
|
|
* descriptions of network topology |
|
|
|
|
* descriptions of network routing plans |
|
|
|
|
* equipment invoices and purchase orders |
|
|
|
|
* other relevant documents. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All documentation should conform to a consistent standard and |
|
|
|
|
any estimates and predictions that are documented must be |
|
|
|
|
realistic and justifiable. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6.12 Confidentiality |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The documentation which supports address space requests |
|
|
|
|
involves information that may be highly confidential to the |
|
|
|
|
organizations and individuals involved. Therefore, APNIC will |
|
|
|
|
operate in ways that reflect the trust implicit in its position |
|
|
|
|
by applying and enforcing procedures that protect the |
|
|
|
|
confidential information of its members and their customers. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Part 2: Policies for address space management |
|
|
|
|
_______________________________________________________________________ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7. General policy framework |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7.1 IRs to adopt consistent address space management policies |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All NIRs and LIRs that receive address space from APNIC (either |
|
|
|
|
directly or indirectly) must adopt allocation and assignment |
|
|
|
|
policies that are consistent with the policies described in |
|
|
|
|
this document. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NIRs and LIRs must ensure that address space for which they are |
|
|
|
|
responsible is only allocated or assigned subject to agreements |
|
|
|
|
consistent with the license provisions of section 9.1. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Also, NIRs must, wherever possible, apply slow start, |
|
|
|
|
assignment window, and second opinion policies to their own |
|
|
|
|
members in a manner consistent with the way APNIC applies such |
|
|
|
|
policies. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8 Address requests |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8.1 Processing of requests dependent on correct documentation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
APNIC will only process requests that have been completely and |
|
|
|
|
properly documented. If the documentation contains errors or |
|
|
|
|
omissions, APNIC will advise the applicant as soon as possible. |
|
|
|
|
APNIC may also request the applicant to provide further |
|
|
|
|
information or clarify relevant issues that are not clear in |
|
|
|
|
the initial request. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
APNIC will process the request as soon as the errors and |
|
|
|
|
omissions have been rectified or the additional questions have |
|
|
|
|
been answered. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
APNIC will make all reasonable efforts to maintain a consistent |
|
|
|
|
and reliable level of service with respect to processing of |
|
|
|
|
requests. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8.2 Security and confidentiality |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
APNIC will maintain systems and practices that protect the |
|
|
|
|
confidentiality of all information relating to the commercial |
|
|
|
|
and infrastructure operations of all members and their |
|
|
|
|
customers. APNIC will ensure that the employment of all of its |
|
|
|
|
staff or agents is based upon an explicit condition of |
|
|
|
|
confidentiality regarding such information. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
APNIC provides for authorisation and verification mechanisms |
|
|
|
|
within the APNIC Whois Database. It is the responsibility of |
|
|
|
|
each IR or end-user to apply these mechanisms. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8.3 Equitable processing of requests |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
APNIC will deal with all requests strictly in the order in |
|
|
|
|
which it receives the proper documentation. To provide fair |
|
|
|
|
treatment for all applicants, APNIC will not in any |
|
|
|
|
circumstance provide for special treatment or make exceptions |
|
|
|
|
to the standard order of request processing. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
APNIC will seek to process all requests within a consistent |
|
|
|
|
time and will maintain a request tracking system for efficient |
|
|
|
|
request management. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8.4 General requirements for allocation requests |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All requests for address space must be supported by |
|
|
|
|
documentation describing: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* the network infrastructure of the organization making the |
|
|
|
|
request; |
|
|
|
|
* any address space currently held by that organization |
|
|
|
|
(including historical address space); |
|
|
|
|
* previous assignments made by that organization (including |
|
|
|
|
assignments made from historical address allocations); and |
|
|
|
|
* the intended use for the address space requested. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In addition to this general requirement, more specific |
|
|
|
|
documentation may also be requested (see Sections 9.2, 9.3, and |
|
|
|
|
9.4). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8.5 Organizations seeking address space from multiple IRs |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Organizations must obtain their address space from only one IR |
|
|
|
|
at a time. Organizations requesting address space from any IR |
|
|
|
|
must declare all the address space they currently hold, |
|
|
|
|
regardless of the source. organizations making concurrent |
|
|
|
|
requests to more than one IR must declare the details of all of |
|
|
|
|
those requests. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In certain circumstances (for example, where an organization is |
|
|
|
|
multihomed), strong technical reasons may justify an |
|
|
|
|
organization receiving address space from more than one source. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the purposes of this section, a parent organization and its |
|
|
|
|
subsidiaries are considered to be a single organization. |
|
|
|
|
Exceptions may arise in cases where the parts of the |
|
|
|
|
organization: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* are separate legal entities; |
|
|
|
|
* maintain fully independent network infrastructures and are |
|
|
|
|
routed under different Autonomous System numbers; or |
|
|
|
|
* or can otherwise demonstrate a justified need to obtain |
|
|
|
|
address space from more than one IR. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9. Address allocation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9.1 Address space license |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
APNIC will allocate and assign Internet resources on a |
|
|
|
|
‘license’ basis, with such licenses to be of specific limited |
|
|
|
|
duration (normally one year). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The conditions of all licenses are described in the APNIC |
|
|
|
|
membership agreements, service agreements, and other relevant |
|
|
|
|
APNIC documents. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Licenses to organizations shall be renewable on the following |
|
|
|
|
conditions: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* the original basis of the allocation or assignment remains |
|
|
|
|
valid; and |
|
|
|
|
* that address space is properly registered at the time of |
|
|
|
|
renewal. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When a license is renewed, the new license will be subject to |
|
|
|
|
address space policies and license conditions effective at the |
|
|
|
|
time of renewal, provided that a minimum notice period of one |
|
|
|
|
year is given of any substantial changes to the conditions of |
|
|
|
|
the current license. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All substantial changes to license conditions are subject to |
|
|
|
|
the consensus of APNIC members, in accordance with the APNIC |
|
|
|
|
Document Review Policies and Procedures. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Individual licenses shall only be subject to review if the |
|
|
|
|
relevant IR has reason to believe that the existing license |
|
|
|
|
terms are no longer being complied with. IRs may implement |
|
|
|
|
their own procedures for the review of existing licenses as |
|
|
|
|
they see fit. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9.2 Slow start mechanism |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject to Section 9.2.1, APNIC and NIRs apply a slow start |
|
|
|
|
mechanism to all new LIRs. The slow start is applied to prevent |
|
|
|
|
allocations of large blocks of address space that may then |
|
|
|
|
remain substantially unassigned. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The initial allocation an LIR receives from APNIC will be the |
|
|
|
|
size of the minimum practical allocation described in Section |
|
|
|
|
6.10. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9.2.1 Exceptions to slow start |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In exceptional circumstances, an LIR may receive a greater |
|
|
|
|
initial allocation if it can demonstrate that its immediate |
|
|
|
|
need for address space exceeds the standard slow start |
|
|
|
|
allocation. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The documentation required to justify an exception to the slow |
|
|
|
|
start may include (but is not limited to): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* receipts for purchase of equipment, |
|
|
|
|
* purchase orders, or |
|
|
|
|
* signed project contracts indicating the immediate network |
|
|
|
|
requirements to be met by the LIR. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9.3 Criteria for initial allocation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To be eligible to obtain an initial allocation, an LIR must: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* have used a /24 from their upstream provider or demonstrate |
|
|
|
|
an immediate need for a /24; |
|
|
|
|
* have complied with applicable policies in managing all |
|
|
|
|
address space previously allocated to it (including |
|
|
|
|
historical allocations); |
|
|
|
|
* demonstrate a detailed plan for use of a /23 within a year; |
|
|
|
|
and |
|
|
|
|
* commit to renumber from previously deployed space into the |
|
|
|
|
new address space within one year. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9.4 Criteria for subsequent allocations |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
After the initial allocation to an LIR, all subsequent |
|
|
|
|
allocations will depend on the following: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* the LIR‘s verified usage rate (which is the rate at which the |
|
|
|
|
LIR made assignments and sub-allocations from relevant past |
|
|
|
|
allocations, including historical allocations) |
|
|
|
|
* their documented plans for address space; and |
|
|
|
|
* their degree of compliance with APNIC policies with respect |
|
|
|
|
to relevant past allocations. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Based on these factors, APNIC and NIRs will allocate enough |
|
|
|
|
address space to meet the LIR‘s estimated needs for a period up |
|
|
|
|
to one year. If APNIC or the NIR make an allocation based on a |
|
|
|
|
period of less than one year, then they must inform the LIR of |
|
|
|
|
the length of the period and the reasons for selecting it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9.4.1 No guarantee of contiguous allocations |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
APNIC will attempt to make subsequent allocations contiguous |
|
|
|
|
with previous allocations, but cannot guarantee that this will |
|
|
|
|
be possible. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9.5 Prior allocations to be used first |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
An LIR is not eligible to receive subsequent allocations until |
|
|
|
|
its current assignments account for at least eighty percent of |
|
|
|
|
the total address space from all allocations it holds. This is |
|
|
|
|
referred to as the “eighty percent rule”. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9.5.1 Special circumstances – large assignments |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
An LIR may request an exception to the eighty percent rule if |
|
|
|
|
it needs to make a single assignment that is larger than the |
|
|
|
|
amount of space remaining. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9.6 Reservations not supported |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When an LIR wants to assign address space for customers, it |
|
|
|
|
must make the assignments from any address space it currently |
|
|
|
|
holds. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When evaluating allocation requests, reserved address space is |
|
|
|
|
considered to be unassigned. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9.7 Address aggregation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is a condition of all allocations, that the allocated |
|
|
|
|
address space is aggregated by the LIR within a minimum number |
|
|
|
|
of route announcements (preferably one). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LIRs must only assign or sub-allocate addresses to customers |
|
1. Introduction |
|
|
who will be using those addresses in relation to network |
|
|
|
|
connectivity services provided by the LIR. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LIRs are expected to enter into agreements with their customers |
|
2. Scope |
|
|
specifying that the end-user will hold the addresses only for |
|
|
|
|
so long as the end-user remains a customer of that LIR. Such |
|
|
|
|
agreements should also be consistent with the license under |
|
|
|
|
which the address space is being used by the LIR. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9.8 Validity of allocations and assignments |
|
3. Delegations from the APNIC IPv4 address pool |
|
|
|
|
3.1. Criteria for initial LIR delegation |
|
|
|
|
3.2. Criteria for subsequent LIR delegations |
|
|
|
|
3.2.1. Prior delegations to be used first |
|
|
|
|
3.2.2. Special circumstances – large delegations |
|
|
|
|
3.3. Criteria for small multihoming delegations |
|
|
|
|
3.4. Criteria for Internet Exchange Points |
|
|
|
|
3.5. Criteria for Critical infrastructure |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
An allocation or assignment of address space is valid only |
|
4. LIR address space management |
|
|
while the original criteria on which the allocation or |
|
4.1. Assignment window for LIRs |
|
|
assignment was based continue to be valid. |
|
4.2. Address usage estimates |
|
|
|
|
4.3. Delegations to downstream IRs |
|
|
|
|
4.3.1. Effect of delegation to downstream IRs on upstream LIR‘s |
|
|
|
|
usage rate |
|
|
|
|
4.4. Registration requirements |
|
|
|
|
4.4.1. Updating registration details |
|
|
|
|
4.4.2. Registering contact persons |
|
|
|
|
4.5. Responsibility to maintain in-addr.arpa records |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
An allocation or assignment becomes invalid if it is: |
|
5. Transfer of address space |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* made for a specific purpose that no longer exists; or |
|
6. How APNIC manages address space |
|
|
* based on information that is later found to be false or |
|
6.1. Reservation for future uses |
|
|
incomplete. |
|
6.2. IPv4 addresses returned to APNIC |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If an allocation or assignment shall become invalid then the |
|
1. Introduction |
|
|
address space must be returned to the appropriate IR. |
|
—————— |
|
|
|
|
APNIC (the Asia Pacific Network Information Centre) is the |
|
|
|
|
Regional Internet Registry (RIR) for the Asia Pacific region, |
|
|
|
|
responsible for distributing public Internet address space and |
|
|
|
|
related resources in the region and for coordinating the |
|
|
|
|
development and implementation of policies to manage those |
|
|
|
|
resources. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9.9 Transfer of address space |
|
The policies described in this document have been developed by |
|
|
|
|
the Internet community of the Asia Pacific region through a |
|
|
|
|
consensus process facilitated by APNIC. They are to be |
|
|
|
|
implemented by APNIC and by the National Internet Registries |
|
|
|
|
(NIRs) and the Local Internet Registries (LIRs) throughout the |
|
|
|
|
region. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject to the more specific provisions of the APNIC transfer, |
|
2. Scope |
|
|
merger, acquisition and takeover policies document APNIC does |
|
———– |
|
|
not recognize the sale or unauthorised transfer of address |
|
|
|
|
space and will consider all such transfers to be invalid. APNIC |
|
|
|
|
will require organizations holding such transfers to return |
|
|
|
|
them to the appropriate IR. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For more information on this policy, see APNIC transfer, |
|
This document describes policies for the responsible management |
|
|
merger, acquisition and takeover policies: |
|
of global IPv4 public address space in the Asia Pacific region. |
|
|
|
|
Specifically, this document focuses on policies relating to the |
|
|
|
|
delegation of IPv4 address space. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.apnic.net/policy/transfer-policy |
|
This document does not describe specific addressing policies |
|
|
|
|
related to IPv6, Multicast, Private Address Space, or Autonomous |
|
|
|
|
System numbers. It should be read in conjunction with other |
|
|
|
|
APNIC documents, including those dealing with membership and |
|
|
|
|
fees. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9.10 Distribution of the final /8 worth of space in the |
|
This document does not provide specific details of request |
|
|
unallocated APNIC IPv4 address pool |
|
evaluation by APNIC, or of expectations relating to specific |
|
|
|
|
technologies. Such details are dependent on technological |
|
|
|
|
advances, and may change frequently. Therefore, to assist |
|
|
|
|
organizations to request address space, APNIC will publish |
|
|
|
|
separate guidelines documents relating to specific technologies |
|
|
|
|
or techniques as required. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When the total remaining space in the unallocated APNIC address |
|
This document does not provide specific details on how networks |
|
|
pool reaches a threshold of a total of one /8, the following |
|
can use Private address space. The use of private address space |
|
|
policies will come into force. |
|
may be appropriate for addressing networks that are connected to |
|
|
|
|
the Internet via a firewall, and where there are not technical |
|
|
|
|
requirements for the use of public address space. In general, |
|
|
|
|
private address space should be used for networks not connected |
|
|
|
|
to the Internet. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9.10.1 Allocations to LIRs |
|
This document must also be read in conjunction with the “Policy |
|
|
|
|
environment for Internet number resource distribution in the |
|
|
|
|
Asia Pacific”, which outlines the structure and principals of |
|
|
|
|
Internet number resource distribution in the Asia Pacific |
|
|
|
|
region, the goals of address management, and definitions of |
|
|
|
|
terms used in this document. The document can be found at: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Each APNIC account holder will be eligible to request and |
|
http://www.apnic.net/policy/policy-environment |
|
|
receive a single allocation from the remaining /8 worth of |
|
|
|
|
space, with the following conditions: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. Each allocation will consist of the minimum IPv4 allocation |
|
3. Delegations from the APNIC IPv4 address pool |
|
|
size |
|
————————————————– |
|
|
2. The account holder must meet the criteria for receiving an |
|
|
|
|
IPv4 allocation specified in one of the following sections |
|
|
|
|
of this policy document: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9.3 Criteria for initial allocation |
|
The current minimum delegation size is a /24 (256 addresses). |
|
|
9.4 Criteria for subsequent allocations |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All APNIC account holders are eligible to receive only one |
|
As of Friday, 15 April 2011, each new or existing APNIC account |
|
|
allocation from the final /8 worth of address space. This |
|
holder is only eligible to request and receive delegations |
|
|
applies to both current and future account holders. |
|
totalling a maximum /22 worth of address space from the APNIC |
|
|
|
|
IPv4 address pool. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9.10.2 Allocations for future uses |
|
To receive a delegation they must meet the criteria specified in |
|
|
|
|
one of the following sections of this policy document: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A /16 will be held in reserve for future uses, as yet |
|
3.1 Criteria for initial LIR delegation |
|
|
unforeseen. |
|
3.2 Criteria for subsequent LIR delegations |
|
|
|
|
3.3 Criteria for small multihoming delegations |
|
|
|
|
3.4 Criteria for Internet Exchange Points |
|
|
|
|
3.5 Criteria for critical infrastructure |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If the reserved /16 remains unused by the time the rest of the |
|
3.1. Criteria for initial LIR delegation |
|
|
remaining /8 worth of space has been allocated, the /16 will be |
|
|
|
|
returned to the APNIC pool for distribution under the policy |
|
|
|
|
described in Section 9.10.1, “Allocations to LIRs”. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9.10.3 Transfers of IPv4 between APNIC account holders |
|
To be eligible, an LIR must: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For more information on this policy, see section 3 of APNIC |
|
– Have used a /24 from their upstream provider or |
|
|
transfer, merger, acquisition and takeover policies: |
|
demonstrate an immediate need for a /24, |
|
|
|
|
– Have complied with applicable policies in managing all |
|
|
|
|
address space previously delegated to it (including |
|
|
|
|
historical delegations), and |
|
|
|
|
– Demonstrate a detailed plan for use of a /23 within a |
|
|
|
|
year |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.apnic.net/policy/transfer-policy |
|
3.2. Criteria for subsequent LIR delegations |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10. LIR address space management |
|
After receiving an initial LIR delegation, all |
|
|
|
|
subsequent delegations will depend on the following: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject to the following provisions, LIRs may either sub-allocate or |
|
– The LIR‘s verified usage rate (which is the rate at |
|
|
assign address space to their customers. |
|
which the LIR made delegations from relevant past |
|
|
|
|
address space, including historical delegations) |
|
|
|
|
– Their documented plans for address space, and |
|
|
|
|
– Their degree of compliance with APNIC policies with |
|
|
|
|
respect to relevant past delegations. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10.1 Assignment window for LIRs |
|
Based on these factors, APNIC and NIRs will delegate |
|
|
|
|
address space to meet the LIR‘s estimated needs for a |
|
|
|
|
period up to one year up to the maximum allowed |
|
|
|
|
delegation under Section 3. If APNIC or the NIR make a |
|
|
|
|
delegation based on a period of less than one year, then |
|
|
|
|
they must inform the LIR of the length of the period and |
|
|
|
|
the reasons for selecting it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
APNIC and NIRs shall apply an assignment window mechanism to |
|
3.2.1. Prior delegations to be used first |
|
|
help LIRs understand and comply with APNIC policies and the |
|
An LIR is not eligible to receive subsequent |
|
|
address management goals. |
|
delegations until its current delegations |
|
|
|
|
account for at least eighty percent of the |
|
|
|
|
total address space it holds. This is referred |
|
|
|
|
to as the “eighty percent rule”. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The assignment window indicates the maximum number of addresses |
|
3.2.2. Special circumstances – large delegations |
|
|
that an LIR may assign or sub-allocate to an end-user without |
|
An LIR may request an exception to the eighty |
|
|
first seeking a ‘second opinion’. If an LIR wishes to make an |
|
percent rule if it needs to make a single |
|
|
assignment or sub-allocation that exceeds its assignment |
|
delegation that is larger than the amount of |
|
|
window, the LIR must first submit a second opinion request. |
|
space it has remaining. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LIRs start with an assignment window of zero, meaning all |
|
3.3. Criteria for small multihoming delegations |
|
|
proposed assignments and sub-allocations must first be |
|
|
|
|
approved. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
APNIC or the relevant NIR will regularly assess the proficiency |
|
An organization is eligible if it is currently |
|
|
of LIR staff in making assignments and sub-allocations and |
|
multihomed with provider-based addresses, or |
|
|
seeking second opinions, and will review the size of the |
|
demonstrates a plan to multihome within one month. |
|
|
assignment window accordingly. As the LIR staff become more |
|
|
|
|
proficient, the size of their assignment window may be raised. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The maximum assignment window given to any LIR will be a /19 |
|
Organizations requesting a delegation under these terms |
|
|
(8,192 addresses). |
|
must demonstrate that they are able to use 25% of the |
|
|
|
|
requested addresses immediately and 50% within one year. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If an LIR‘s staff appears to become less proficient (for |
|
3.4. Criteria for Internet Exchange Points |
|
|
example, due to the training of new staff or other relevant |
|
|
|
|
circumstances) then that LIR‘s assignment window may be |
|
|
|
|
temporarily reduced. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In addition, it is mandatory to register an Incident Report Team |
|
Internet Exchange Points (IXP) are eligible to receive a |
|
|
(IRT) object for each allocation and assignment record in the APNIC |
|
delegation from APNIC to be used exclusively to connect |
|
|
Whois Database. |
|
the IXP participant devices to the Exchange Point. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10.2 Assignment usage estimates |
|
Global routability of the delegation is left to the |
|
|
|
|
discretion of the IXP and its participants. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Requests for assignments must be supported by usage estimates |
|
3.5. Criteria for Critical infrastructure |
|
|
based on immediate and projected future need. These requests |
|
|
|
|
must be accompanied by documentation that supports the |
|
|
|
|
estimates. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The estimates should made for the following periods: |
|
The following critical infrastructure networks, if |
|
|
|
|
operating in the Asia Pacific region, are eligible to |
|
|
|
|
receive a delegation: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* immediately; |
|
– Root domain name system (DNS) server |
|
|
* within one year; and |
|
– Global top level domain (gTLD) nameservers |
|
|
* within two years. |
|
– Country code TLD (ccTLDs) nameservers |
|
|
|
|
– IANA |
|
|
|
|
– Regional Internet Registry (RIRs), and |
|
|
|
|
– National Internet Registry (NIRs) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
APNIC recommends that, as a general guideline, organizations |
|
Delegations to critical infrastructure are available |
|
|
should base their assignment requests on the assumption that 25 |
|
only to the actual operators of the network |
|
|
percent of the address space will be used immediately and 50 |
|
infrastructure performing such functions. Registrar |
|
|
percent used within one year. |
|
organizations that do not actually host the network |
|
|
|
|
housing the registry infrastructure will not be eligible |
|
|
|
|
under this policy. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The end-user must provide documentation that supports its one |
|
Exchanges made under this policy remain subject to the |
|
|
year usage estimate. If it is not possible for the end-user to |
|
address space license policy. See “Policy environment |
|
|
estimate confidently what the two year usage rate will be, then |
|
for Internet number resource distribution in the Asia |
|
|
APNIC or the NIR may make an allocation that will be sufficient |
|
Pacific”. |
|
|
for the one year needs only. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10.3 Sub-allocations by LIRs |
|
http//:www.apnic.net/policy/policy-environment |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LIRs may sub-allocate address space to their downstream |
|
4. LIR address space management |
|
|
customers which are operating networks, such as ISPs, subject |
|
———————————- |
|
|
to the following conditions: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Sub-allocations are non-portable and must be returned to the |
|
LIRs may delegate address space to their customers subject to |
|
|
LIR if the downstream customer ceases to receive connectivity |
|
the following provisions. |
|
|
from the LIR. |
|
|
|
|
* Sub-allocations are subject to the LIR‘s assignment window. |
|
|
|
|
Requests for sub-allocations which exceed the LIR‘s |
|
|
|
|
assignment window must first be referred to APNIC for second |
|
|
|
|
opinion approval. |
|
|
|
|
* The downstream customer which receives a sub-allocation from |
|
|
|
|
an LIR is not permitted to further sub-allocate the address |
|
|
|
|
space. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10.3.1 Effect of sub-allocations on LIR‘s usage rate |
|
4.1. Assignment window for LIRs |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the purposes of evaluating the LIR‘s usage rate (see |
|
APNIC and NIRs shall apply an assignment window |
|
|
sections 9.4 and 9.5), sub-allocated address space will be |
|
mechanism to help LIRs understand and comply with APNIC |
|
|
considered as “used”. However, APNIC will give careful |
|
policies and the address management goals. |
|
|
consideration to the registration of assignments within the |
|
|
|
|
allocations, and may request supporting documentation as |
|
|
|
|
necessary. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10.4 Registration requirements |
|
The assignment window indicates the maximum number of |
|
|
|
|
addresses an LIR may delegate to an end-user without |
|
|
|
|
first seeking a “second opinion”. If an LIR wishes to |
|
|
|
|
make an delegation that exceeds its delegation window, |
|
|
|
|
the LIR must first submit a second opinion request. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
IRs are responsible for promptly and accurately registering |
|
LIRs start with a delegation window of zero, meaning all |
|
|
their allocations, sub-allocations, and assignments with APNIC |
|
proposed delegations must first be approved. |
|
|
as follows: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* All allocations and sub-allocations must be registered. |
|
APNIC, or the relevant NIR, will regularly assess the |
|
|
* Assignments for networks greater than /30 must be registered. |
|
proficiency of LIR staff in making delegations and |
|
|
* Assignments for networks of /30 or less may be registered, at |
|
seeking second opinions and will review the size of the |
|
|
the discretion of the IR and the network administrator. |
|
assignment window accordingly. As the LIR staff become |
|
|
* Assignments to hosts may be registered, at the discretion of |
|
more proficient, the size of their assignment window may |
|
|
the IR and the end-user. |
|
be raised. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
IRs can choose whether or not to designate this information |
|
The maximum assignment window given to any LIR will be a |
|
|
‘public’. Customer registration details that are not designated |
|
/19 (8,192 addresses). |
|
|
‘public’ will not be generally available via the APNIC Whois |
|
|
|
|
Database. The database record will instead direct specific |
|
|
|
|
whois enquiries to the IR concerned. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10.4.1 Updating registration details |
|
If an LIR‘s staff appears to become less proficient (for |
|
|
|
|
example, due to the training of new staff or other |
|
|
|
|
relevant circumstances) then that LIR‘s assignment |
|
|
|
|
window may be temporarily reduced. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
IRs must update their registration records when any of the |
|
4.2. Address usage estimates |
|
|
registration information changes. This is the responsibility of |
|
|
|
|
the IR concerned, but may be formally delegated to the end-user |
|
|
|
|
as a condition of the original assignment. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10.4.2 Registering contact persons |
|
Requests for delegations must be supported by usage |
|
|
|
|
estimates based on immediate and projected future need. |
|
|
|
|
These requests must be accompanied by documentation that |
|
|
|
|
supports the estimates. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Administrative and technical contact persons must be |
|
The estimates should be made for the following periods: |
|
|
registered. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The registered administrative contact (‘admin-c’) must be |
|
– Immediately, |
|
|
someone who is physically located at the site of the network, |
|
– Within one year, and |
|
|
subject to the following exceptions: |
|
– Within two years |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* For residential networks or users, the IR‘s technical contact |
|
APNIC recommends that, as a general guideline, |
|
|
may be registered as admin-c. |
|
organizations should base their resource requests on the |
|
|
* For networks in exceptional circumstances that make it |
|
assumption that 25% of the address space will be used |
|
|
impractical to maintain an on-site administrative contact, an |
|
immediately and 50% will be used within one year. |
|
|
off-site person may be registered as the admin-c |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The technical contact (‘tech-c’) need not be physically located |
|
The end-user must provide documentation that supports |
|
|
at the site of the network, but must be a person who is |
|
its one-year usage estimate. If it is not possible for |
|
|
responsible for the day-to-day operation of the network. |
|
the end-user to estimate confidently what the two-year |
|
|
|
|
usage rate will be, then APNIC or the NIR may make a |
|
|
|
|
delegation that will be sufficient for the one-year |
|
|
|
|
needs only. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10.5 Responsibility to maintain in-addr.arpa records |
|
4.3. Delegations to downstream IRs |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LIRs should maintain in-addr.arpa resource records for their |
|
LIRs may delegate address space to their downstream |
|
|
customers’ networks. If a network is not specifically |
|
customers, which are operating networks, such as ISPs, |
|
|
associated with an LIR then the in-addra.arpa records should be |
|
subject to the following conditions: |
|
|
maintained by either the appropriate NIR or APNIC. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11. Assignments and exchanges |
|
– Delegations are non-portable and must be returned to |
|
|
|
|
the LIR if the downstream customer ceases to receive |
|
|
|
|
connectivity from the LIR. |
|
|
|
|
– Delegations are subject to the LIR‘s assignment |
|
|
|
|
window. Requests for delegations, which exceed the |
|
|
|
|
LIR‘s assignment window, must first be referred to |
|
|
|
|
APNIC for second opinion approval. |
|
|
|
|
– The downstream customer is not permitted to further |
|
|
|
|
delegate the address space. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11.1 Small multihoming assignments |
|
4.3.1. Effect of delegation to downstream IRs on |
|
|
|
|
upstream LIR‘s usage rate |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
An organization is eligible to receive a portable assignment |
|
For the purposes of evaluating the LIR‘s usage |
|
|
from APNIC if it: |
|
rate (see section 3.2), address space |
|
|
|
|
delegated to downstream LIRs will be |
|
|
|
|
considered as “used”. However, APNIC will give |
|
|
|
|
careful consideration to the registration of |
|
|
|
|
delegations made by the downstream LIR to |
|
|
|
|
their customers and may request supporting |
|
|
|
|
documentation as necessary. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* is currently multihomed with provider-based addresses, or |
|
4.4. Registration requirements |
|
|
demonstrates a plan to multihome within one month; and |
|
|
|
|
* agrees to renumber out of previously assigned address space. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
An organization is considered to be multihomed if its network |
|
Internet Registries (IRs) are responsible for promptly |
|
|
receives full-time connectivity from more than one ISP and has |
|
and accurately registering their address space use with |
|
|
one or more routing prefixes announced by at least two of its |
|
APNIC as follows: |
|
|
ISPs. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Organizations requesting a portable assignment under these |
|
– All delegations from APNIC to the IR must be |
|
|
terms must demonstrate that they are able to use 25 percent of |
|
registered. |
|
|
the requested assignment immediately and 50 percent within one |
|
– All delegations to downstream IRs must be registered. |
|
|
year. |
|
– Delegations made to networks greater than a /30 must |
|
|
|
|
be registered. |
|
|
|
|
– Delegations made to networks of a /30 or less may be |
|
|
|
|
registered, at the discretion of the IR and the |
|
|
|
|
network administrator. |
|
|
|
|
– Delegations to hosts may be registered, at the |
|
|
|
|
discretion of the IR and the end-user. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is no minimum assignment size for portable assignments |
|
IRs can choose whether or not to designate this |
|
|
made under these terms. |
|
information “public”. Customer registration details that |
|
|
|
|
are not designated “public” will not be generally |
|
|
|
|
available via the APNIC Whois Database. The database |
|
|
|
|
record will instead direct specific whois enquiries to |
|
|
|
|
the IR concerned. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11.2 Internet Exchange Points |
|
In addition, it is mandatory to register an Incident |
|
|
|
|
Report Team (IRT) object for each address block record |
|
|
|
|
in the APNIC Whois Database. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Internet Exchange Points are eligible to receive a portable |
|
4.4.1. Updating registration details |
|
|
assignment from APNIC to be used exclusively to connect the IXP |
|
|
|
|
participant devices to the Exchange Point. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The minimum assignment made under these terms is /24. |
|
IRs must update their registration records |
|
|
|
|
when any of the registration information |
|
|
|
|
changes. This is the responsibility of the IR |
|
|
|
|
concerned. However, this responsibility may be |
|
|
|
|
formally assigned to the end-user as a |
|
|
|
|
condition of the original delegation. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Global routability of the portable assignment is left to the |
|
4.4.2. Registering contact persons |
|
|
discretion of the IXP and its participants. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11.3 Critical infrastructure |
|
Administrative and technical contact persons |
|
|
|
|
must be registered. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The following critical infrastructure networks, if operating in |
|
The registered administrative contact (“admin- |
|
|
the Asia Pacific region, are eligible to receive a portable |
|
c”) must be someone who is physically located |
|
|
assignment: |
|
at the site of the network, subject to the |
|
|
|
|
following exceptions: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* root domain name system (DNS) server; |
|
– For residential networks or users, the IR‘s |
|
|
* global top level domain (gTLD) nameservers; |
|
technical contact may be registered as the |
|
|
* country code TLD (ccTLDs) nameservers; |
|
admin-c. |
|
|
* IANA; |
|
– For networks in exceptional circumstances |
|
|
* Regional Internet Registry (RIRs); and |
|
that make it impractical to maintain an on- |
|
|
* National Internet Registry (NIRs). |
|
site administrative contact, an off-site |
|
|
|
|
person may be registered as the admin-c. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Assignments to critical infrastructure are available only to |
|
The technical contact (“tech-c”) need not be |
|
|
the actual operators of the network infrastructure performing |
|
physically located at the site of the network, |
|
|
such functions. Registrar organizations which do not actually |
|
but must be a person who is responsible for |
|
|
host the network housing the registry infrastructure, will not |
|
the day-to-day operation of the network. |
|
|
be eligible for an assignment under this policy. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The minimum assignment made under these terms is /24. |
|
4.5. Responsibility to maintain in-addr.arpa records |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exchanges made under this policy remain subject to the address |
|
LIRs should maintain in-addr.arpa resource records for |
|
|
space license policy. |
|
their customers’ networks. If a network is not |
|
|
|
|
specifically associated with an LIR then the |
|
|
|
|
in-addra.arpa records should be maintained by either the |
|
|
|
|
appropriate NIR or APNIC. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12. Closure of LIRs |
|
5. Transfer of address space |
|
|
|
|
——————————- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If an LIR holding APNIC address space ceases to provide |
|
IPv4 addresses may be transferred in accordance with the “APNIC |
|
|
Internet connectivity services, all of its address space must |
|
transfer, merger, acquisition, and takeover policy”. APNIC does |
|
|
be returned to APNIC. It is the responsibility of the LIR (or |
|
not recognize transfers outside this policy and require |
|
|
any liquidator or administrator appointed to wind up the |
|
organizations holding such transfers to return them to the |
|
|
member’s business) to advise all of its customers that address |
|
appropriate IR. For more information on this policy, see the |
|
|
space will be returned to APNIC, and that renumbering into new |
|
“APNIC transfer, merger, acquisition, and takeover policy”: |
|
|
address space will be necessary. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In the case that a new LIR takes over the business or |
|
http://www.apnic.net/policy/transfer-policy |
|
|
infrastructure of the closed LIR, the existing address space |
|
|
|
|
may be transferred to the new LIR, however such a transfer is |
|
|
|
|
subject to reexamination by APNIC and may be treated as a new |
|
|
|
|
address request process. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For more on the transfer of resources, see APNIC transfer, |
|
6. How APNIC manages address space |
|
|
merger, acquisition and takeover policies: |
|
————————————- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.apnic.net/policy/transfer-policy |
|
6.1. Reservation for future uses |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
13. Request evaluation guidelines |
|
A /16 will be held in reserve for future uses, as yet |
|
|
|
|
unforeseen. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This document does not provide specific details of request |
|
If the reserved /16 remains unused by the time the |
|
|
evaluation by APNIC, or of expectations relating to specific |
|
remaining available space has been delegated, the /16 |
|
|
technologies. Such details are dependent on technological |
|
will be returned to the APNIC pool for distribution |
|
|
advances, and may change frequently. Therefore APNIC will |
|
under the policy described in Section 3, “Delegations |
|
|
publish separate guidelines documents relating to specific |
|
from the APNIC IPv4 address pool”. |
|
|
technologies or techniques as required. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Such guidelines may contain any of the following: |
|
6.2. IPv4 addresses returned to APNIC |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* descriptions of evaluation procedures to be used for certain |
|
Any IPv4 resources received by APNIC will be placed |
|
|
types of address space requests |
|
into the APNIC IPv4 pool for delegation under the |
|
|
* summaries of the best current practices that organizations |
|
policies described in Section 3, “Delegations from the |
|
|
requesting address space will generally be expected to |
|
APNIC IPv4 address pool”. This placement applies to any |
|
|
implement in their network plans; and |
|
IPv4 addresses APNIC receives from IANA and/or holders |
|
|
* other information that may assist organizations to request |
|
of addresses in the APNIC Whois Database, subject to |
|
|
address space. |
|
any future global policy for the redistribution of |
|
|
|
|
addresses received by IANA from the RIRs. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
End of changes. 88 change blocks. |
|
985 lines changed or deleted |
|
307 lines changed or added |
|
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.42. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/ |