3. Hot Topics Japanese Page
3.10 Changes in JPNIC Policy and Administration Systems Regarding Allocation / Assignment of IP Address Space - Aligning with APNIC Policy
Global Trends Associated with the Growth of the Internet
Given the rapid growth of the Internet, the Internet community currently imposes strict regulations on the allocation / assignment of IPv4 address space, with a view to delaying the depletion, and decreasing, or at least not increasing, the routing information. Details of these regulations are contained in RFC2050, which was drafted by IANA (currently being reorganized as ICANN) and the three regional registries and was approved at the IETF meeting in 1996. They are also contained in the APNIC policy document, which was drafted by APNIC, an upstream registry of JPNIC and for which a 'final call for comments' has been announced.
As JPNIC commenced IP address administration prior to the establishment of APNIC, and as it operates as an independent country registry, JPNIC's policy has not always been the same as that of APNIC. However, with the recent release of APNIC policy documents, checks regarding allocation / assignment of IP addresses have become stricter. As a result, there is a need for JPNIC to adjust its administration system and bring it into line with global trends.
JPNIC is taking this opportunity to revise all the documents that we currently use, as it set to gradually alter its IP address-related administration system in accordance with APNIC policies. At present, new documents including registration forms are scheduled for release in September of this year, while new rules are to be fully enforced from January next year.
However, as there is a risk that JPNIC may become unable to receive an allocation from APNIC in certain circumstances, or that such allocation may be delayed, JPNIC is also beginning to alter its method of review of applications within the present set of rules. Under the present rules, a prior review is required for assignments where the total assignment window exceeds /21. During the review, we have gradually been gathering information indicating the legitimacy of the method of use of addresses.
Changes to Method of Review
The review of information gathered through address space request procedure is conducted by full-time IP address-related personnel within the secretariat, with Working Group members only having an advisory role in the process, providing technical advice where necessary. Working Group members will no longer know the name of the member or client to whom the review relates, and will simply act to supplement the knowledge of secretariat members regarding rapidly-changing Internet technology, machine specifications, etc. Of course, all working group members will be required to sign non-disclosure agreements, ensuring they will be unable to disclose items other than those which have clearly been made public.
Then what is 'information indicating the legitimacy of the method of use of addresses'? Regarding ISP infrastructure, an application for network addresses is clearly defined if it includes the following sorts of information: remarks for each subnet (in the form of simple memos), service details (dial-up, virtual hosting, leased lines, co-location, etc.), equipment currently in use (particularly the type of access server), the number of ports (the specific number of addresses to be used), and future equipment deployment plans. Also, where the ISP uses a network to link multiple access points, the equipment used at each access point, future installation plans, a network topology map showing the relationship between the various access points, and a network diagram, should all be submitted.
The recommended best current practice (BCP) includes the use of dynamic address assignment for dial-up services and the use of HTTP/1.1 for virtual webs, as well as the use of IP unnumbered addresses under suitable conditions. These practices are not an essential requirement, but if not followed, it is possible that JPNIC will receive a warning or guidance from APNIC when requesting an allocation, particularly in cases where a dial-up service uses static addressing.
In cases other than ISP infrastructure, required information includes remarks for each subnet, the type of equipment used, the number of devices used and the rate of growth, the number of access points, and a network topology map. We are often asked, "what information constitutes 'sufficient' information?" Our answer to this is: "information which is sufficient in order for JPNIC staff to gain a clear understanding of your company's network and address application." There have been criticisms that this response is overly vague, but as each case investigated varies in terms of the purpose of use, equipment, and software, it is impossible to summarize all requirements in a single manual. However, we are currently working to make requirements as clear as possible. This stance is shared by APNIC, RIPE NCC in Europe, and ARIN in the US. Our response to questions regarding the length of a review is similar. a review can only be concluded and an application approved when staff have!
clear understanding of the network and address application, and are satisfied that the application is legitimate.
Japan Within the Global Internet
In order to understand the present need for JPNIC to gather such detailed information, it is necessary to look at the global situation. Recent routing tables are said to include around 60,000 items. Also, according to a survey by Merit in the us, /24 accounts for the vast majority of advertised prefixes. As a result, registries are seeking to develop a policy which enables classless allocation in order to aggregate routing information wherever possible. The three regional registries are currently coordinating their actions and beginning to develop policies which will be fair and consistent for all Internet users. With the current level of attention that these issues are receiving, Japan must also act to bring its practices into line with global practices.
Registries such as JPNIC are unable to control all areas of the Internet. This task can only be done by large backbone ISPs handling routing. This is clear when one thinks back to the situation whereby a US ISP established a policy of not allowing prefixes longer than /19. However, registries recognize their responsibility and duty to consider what should be done in order to utilize limited Internet resources as efficiently as possible and provide them to users in a fair and equitable manner.
We look forward to your continued understanding and cooperation.