1. Separate Assignment Policies for End-Users and ISPs Izumi Okutani Japan Network Information Center

2. Purpose In order to match the policy with the current practice, I would like to propose making a separate assignment policy for ISPs.

3. Current Assignment Situation Two types of network for assignments  End-users’ network  ISPs’ network

4. Attributes of End users’ network  Constructed for the end-user ’ s own use –PREDICTABLE –LITTLE CHANGE –NOT LARGE IN NUMBER

5. Attributes of ISPs’ network  Network constructed to provide services to the end-user’s customers –UNPREDICTABLE: network topology depends on the number of end-users they have,.i.e, the state of their business –LARGE IN NUMBER

6. Current Assignment Policy  RFC2050, APNIC policy(APNIC-076), and JPNIC address assignment policy –Assigns address space to cover up to 1 year’s necessity –Needs to use 25% of assigned address space by 6 months and 50% in one year –Does not require information to back the estimation

7. Problems with ISP Assignments Under the Current Policy  UNPREDICTABILITY:network topology depends on the state of their business –Difficult to make an accurate estimation of the needs  WASTE:large in amount –a greater number of global addresses will be wasted if the needs were overestimated. –50% of ISPs’ assignments are quite large.  INCONSISTENCY: ISPs allocated – 3month, ISPs assigned – 1 year

8. Actual Practice Due to the problems described above, most IRs implement assignments based on the actual usage for ISP assignments. JPNIC takes the following factors into consideration for ISP assignments  Business experience –Has been providing the service –Newly starts the service

9. When an applicant has been providing the service Approve what a hostmaster considers appropriate from the following information  usage in the past 12 months –able to see if their estimate is well-documented.  estimate for the next 12 months –allows us to make more fine judgment to meet its needs for a particular duration

10. When Applicant newly starts the services  Approve the amount of address to meet their immediate needs, then ask them to make a request again when their needs exceeds this block. We ask for –Monthly estimate for the next 12 months  Judge the “immediate needs” by – monthly estimates –what they consider is reasonable –the equipment they would have purchased at the time of the start-up (dial-up services) – etc

11. Reference Information There are also information we ask per service to judge their needs  Dial-up  Cable  Hosting

12. Dial-up  The increase in the number of machines and PRI for 3months/6 months/1 year  User-address ratios  The number of customers for the past one-year on monthly basis  The number of customers estimated for the next one year on monthly basis

13. Cable  User: address ratios  The number of customers for the past one-year on monthly basis  The number of customers estimated for the next one year on monthly basis  List of current customers

14. Hosting  Name/address based  The number of customers for the past one-year on monthly basis  The number of customers estimated for the next one year on monthly basis  List of current customers

15. Summary on the Practice We only approve the amount foreseeable in the future with back-up information for ISP assignments.

16. Conclusion The current practice described above allows more efficient use of the global address, but it is not explicitly stated on the policy. I would like to propose documenting a separate assignment policy for ISPs to match this practice.