Last Call: INTERNET REGISTRY IP ALLOCATION GUIDELINES to BCP
Barry Raveendran Greene barry at singnet.com.sg
Mon Apr 29 09:20:09 CEST 1996
TO: IESG and AP Internet Community, The IESG has received a request from the CIDR Deployment Working Group to consider "INTERNET REGISTRY IP ALLOCATION GUIDELINES" <draft-hubbard-registry-guidelines-01.txt> for the status of BCP. The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send any comments to the iesg at cnri.reston.va.us or ietf at cnri.reston.va.us mailing lists by May 3, 1996. As the draft stands now, Singapore Telecom would be against this document being forwarded to become an Internet Best Common Practice (BCP) status (i.e. an Internet operational standard). The draft as it stands, reflects policies that promote and encourage a US Centric Internet infrastructure and enshrines the position of a few large US ISPs will then dominate the rest of the world. This endangers the development of domestic Internet infrastructures in the Asia Pacific Region and penalizes the Asia Pacific Region for doing a good job at keeping it's assigned blocks (202 and 203) within acceptable utilization AND routing levels. ALL ASIA PACFIC readers who are CCed on this message are highly encouraged to download this draft document at: ftp://ds.internic.net/internet-drafts/draft-hubbard-registry-guidelines-01.txt and forward your position by May 3! Please do so otherwise, a major global Internet policy will be forced on you (just reply to this message). If you agree or disagree with this draft moving to BCP status, please send an E-mail message to: iesg at cnri.reston.va.us or ietf at cnri.reston.va.us. All voices and comments count! I know that the team who put together the draft worked hard to get to this point. 80% of the draft is excellent, but it still needs more work. Below are some of my comments. Later, I will submit proposed changes formally to the authors. Barry Raveendran Greene Deputy Director SingNet/STIX Planning and Operation Singapore Telecom ================================================================= SINGAPORE TELECOM PRELIMINARY COMMENTS Section 2 - Allocation Framework As it stands in this draft, a new ISP in country X will have to get their IP addresses from their upstream provider. Most ISPs in AP have their upstream provider in the United States, therefore this would mean getting your addresses from the US provider. Getting it from THE US provider means that country X will be ENSLAVED to that ISP and that country to the upstream provider. If country X then wishes to move to another cheaper upstream provider they will have to RENUMBER the whole country. Since everyone agrees that the Internet is critical to business (i.e. the Internet as the foundation for the GII) , you will see how this policy has a direct impact on the ECONOMY of countries. One counter argument to this would be that this ISP in country X should have multi-homed right away. However, we know that those who say so are obviously not aware of the prices ISPs outside of the US need to pay to get there. Today, we are seeing two large US ISPs trying to promote this policy on new Asia Pacific ISPs who are unaware of the current APNIC policies (which are working). They are pushing their IP addresses on these national ISPs. A year from now, when the lease circuit contracts are terminated, that AP ISP who may wish to move to another upstream provider, will now have to renumber all the networks under that AP ISP. This it would be disastrous for that ISP to renumber, therefore, they have no choice but to be stuck to their original US upstream provider. Having now a captured customer, the US ISP can raise prices anytime. Hence, you can see how this policy only promotes US commercial interest above the interest of a global Internet infrastructure. Those in the CIDR community, should remember, that we are only talking about ONE routing entry per Asia Pacific ISP. APNIC (202-203) has NOT been a problem. We are keeping our act together. This draft penalizes ISPs in the APNIC region for doing a great job at keeping 202 - 203 from become a problem for the rest of the world. There is therefore NO REASON to change things in AP. Section 3.0 Comments are similar to the above. The only exception would be that if this draft is forward to BCP, Singapore Telecom will push APNIC to move from the current "slow start" policy to a default /18 for ALL NEW ISPs in countries in the AP region. This will be done through section 6 "Right to Appeal" on the basis of best interest of a global Internet and to insure each country has the flexibility to develop its domestic Internet infrastructure in a way that would make since for them. Please note that in Asia Pacific, these domestic Internet infrastructures are also called National Information Infrastructures (NIIs). Asia Pacific governments sees NIIs as a critical tool to continued economic growth. This draft threatens the autonomy and flexibly to choose what makes since for their country. The counter to this would be for each nation to form their own registry. But as we (in the AP region) know, this is a painful process. It takes time for national NICs to be formed, is it is feasible to form them at all. National NICs are not a solution. Section 3.3 Previous Assignment History. This section is out prevent companies like IBM, HP, and other old allocations of the class A space from getting more addresses. The result is to hamstring the Asia Pacific Internet community. Business relationships in Asia Pacific and very complex, interrelated, and competitive. Example, if you trace Asia Pacific country X's ISP corporate parentage, you will find that they all lead to one of several interrelated holding companies. Yet, all of country X's ISPs are cut throat competitive. You find similar relationships all other countries in the AP region. My colleague at JPNIC has also commented on this section from the JP perspective. This section of the draft does not consider any other business culture that the US. As a result, it will cause more problems and disruption then solve. ---------- From: IESG Secretary[SMTP:iesg-secretary at ietf.org] Sent: Saturday, April 20, 1996 1:01 AM To: IETF-Announce:; Cc: cidrd at iepg.org Subject: Last Call: INTERNET REGISTRY IP ALLOCATION GUIDELINES to BCP The IESG has received a request from the CIDR Deployment Working Group to consider "INTERNET REGISTRY IP ALLOCATION GUIDELINES" <draft-hubbard-registry-guidelines-01.txt> for the status of BCP. The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send any comments to the iesg at cnri.reston.va.us or ietf at cnri.reston.va.us mailing lists by May 3, 1996.
[ lir-wg Archives ]