Izumi Okutani JPNIC IP Department [email protected] NIR Meeting Feb 2004 JPNIC Open Policy Meeting Update

Izumi OkutaniJPNIC IP Department

[email protected]

NIR MeetingFeb 　 2004

JPNIC Open Policy MeetingUpdate　

Copyright © 2003 Japan Network Information Center

2

Contents

• Policy Making in JP

• Discussions at JP-OPM

• Discussions on the ML

• Summary

• Future considerations

• Next Meeting


3

Introduction

This presentation introduces discussions and issues in 5th JPNIC Open Policy Meeting 　 and our policy mailing list

Policy Making in JP


5

How it works with AP-OPM

AP-OPM

JP-OPM

AP-OPM

JP-OPM

1.JP consensus

2. proposal

3. AP consensus

4. report

1. AP consensus

3.JP consensus

Proposals from the JP Community Proposals from the AP Community

4. counter-proposal2. report

5. AP re-consensus


6

The CurrentPolicy Making Process in JP

Proposal Consensus

Implementation

CFP JP-OPM

JPNIC Secretariat

Policy Advisory Council

IP Committee

JPNIC BoardApproval

Review

ip-users ML

Online Discussions

JP Community JPNIC


7

JPNIC Open Policy Meetings

• Held 2/year,70 attendees/average

• Attendees– Mostly ISPs, but also academic institutions, IT product

vendors, etc

• Registration– open to anyone, free of charge

• Session:– Address Policy SIG

JPNIC Open Policy Meeting 5


9

JPNIC 5

• Date: 5th Dec 2004 9:30-14:30(lunch 1hr)• Place: Pacifico Yokohama, Japan• Attendees: 105 • Presentations:

– Information :5– Proposal: 1

• Consensus– Revision of the JPNIC documents based on APNIC poli

cy changes


10

Discussions at JP-OPM


11

JPNIC5 Agenda

1. JPNIC Update

2. APNIC Open Policy Meeting Issues

3. Lame Delegations Report

4. Starting an Agent Service: Portable Assignments for Small Multi-homed Networks

5. IPv6 Policy Planning Team Update

6. RIRs & NIRs Update

7. Revision of the JPNIC Policy Document(*)

(*) = Proposal


12

Major Discussions Topics

• Privacy of customer assignment records

• The change of Minimum Allocation size

• Replacing end user’s admin-c by LIR’s contact


13

Privacy of Customer Assignment Records

• Introduced the consensus in AP• JPNIC proposed an alternative protection m

ethod

• JPNIC partially protects whois private info already

• All assignment records are publicly accessible, but necessary care will be taken


14

Comments on Privacy of Customer Assignment Records(I)• Needs of privacy protection

– No clear consensus– End-users should bear the equal responsibility?

• The role of whois database– Restricted to contact information directory?…Or More?

• Responsibility of LIRs– How far should LIRs take the responsibility?– Restricted to contacts? …Or more?


15

• Request for co-ordination with APNIC to protect information disclosed in APNIC whois

Comments on Privacy of Customer Assignment

Records(II)


16

Outcome

• No clear consensus

• Continue discussions on the ML


17The Change of Minimum Allocation Size

Introduced the idea without specifying size nor criteria


18Commnets on the Change of Minimum Allocation Size

• Support the idea of lowering the barrier, but should ensure the CIDR structure

• Should not encourage end user networks without technical reasons to receive allocations


19Comments on the Change of Minimum Allocation Size

• Alternative suggestions:– lowering the criteria but keeping the allocation

size unchanged(/20)– Apply multi-homing criteria instead of criteria

based on address size

• Distinction between portable assignments and allocations must be clarified


20

Outcome

Support the idea, but more discussions necessary about the method


21

Replacing admin-c with LIR’s Contact

• Already implemented in operations

• Documented in the APNIC policy

• Proposed to describe it in the JPNIC policy


22

Outcome

• Consensus reached at the meeting for a consistent policy with APNIC

However….

• Further discussions took place on the ML• Received comments against the proposal fro

m some LIRs outside the ML


23

Other Discussions

• Applying AD-ratio in IPv4 allocations– Utilization should be evaluated for each POP

instead of applying AD-ratio in IPv4

• Lame delegation checks– JPNIC should provide info about lame servers– JPNIC secretariat will consider a specific

implementation method


24

Summary of the meeting

• 4 hours was too short• Queue at microphones!• Introducing proposals before the AP

consensus • Questionnaire showed interests in making

proposals• Held on the same day as LIR Meeting to

encourage LIR participation

New

New

Discussions on ip-users ML


26

Discussion Topics on the ML

• Replacing admin-c by LIR’s contact

• APNIC17 proposals

• The consensus process in JP


27

Replacing admin-c by LIR’s Contact

• End users should bare the equal responsibility

• Changes the definition of admin-c if restricting its role as contacts

• The responsibility of LIRs is ambiguous– Merely act as a contact?– Makes decision about cutting connections/other actions f

or abuse complaints?– The implications on legal responsibilities?


28

Outcome

• JPNIC suspended the implementation

• JPNIC will re-define admin-c and make a proposal at the next JP-OPM– Clearly describe that admin-c merely serves as

a contact


29

APNIC17 proposals

• Translated policy proposals on the SIG ML– Lowering minimum allocation size & criteria– IPv6 allocations to closed networks– IPv6 address for IPv4 networks– Recovery of unused historical resources

• No comments so far


30

Definition of theconsensus process

• No defined process for the meeting consensus 　　 ML discussions– e.g) discussions on replacing admin-c

– No timeframe defined for comments, implementation

• Co-ordination with LIRs– Some LIRs feel:

• JPNIC should discuss policies with LIRs seperately

• More comfortable to comment individually, not on the ML


31

Definition of theconsensus process

The secretariat holds a working group meeting in March to discuss this issue


32

Summary

• The first meeting to introduce AP proposals in advance

• Many non-JPNIC participants spoke out at the meeting

• Fundamental issues were raised– the policy development process– co-ordination with LIR meetings


33

Future Considerations

• Define Policy Development Process– Distinction between JP-OPM &LIR Meetings

• Encourage active participation– More proposals from the community– Encourage more LIR participation– Activate the ML

• Introduce AP proposals at JP-OPM in advance


34

Future model with AP-OPM

AP-OPM

JP-OPM

AP-OPM

JP-OPM

1.JP consensus

2. proposal

3. AP consensus

4. report

1. proposal

3.JP consensus

Proposals from the JP Community Proposals from the AP Community

2. report 4.feedback

5.AP consensus


35

Next JP-OPM

• Summer 2004– Specific date to be fixed around April

• APNIC and NIR staff are welcome to attend our meeting!


36

Thank You!

Documents

Izumi Okutani JPNIC IP Department [email protected] NIR Meeting Feb 2004 JPNIC Open Policy Meeting Update