[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Procedures for IPv6 allocations - discussion
Dear Hostmaster staff,
This email is being sent to you as a "National Internet Registry"
confederation member of APNIC, via the new "nir-discuss" mailing
list. This list is open for general discussion amongst NIR
members of APNIC, regarding any policy or operational matters
which are relevant to NIRs. All discussions will be publically
archived on the APNIC web site.
Subject : IPv6 allocations
As you are aware, under the auspices of the IANA, in July this year,
the 3 existing Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) were delegated
formal responsibility for the management of IPv6 address space
allocations, as described in the combined registry "Provisional
IPv6 Assignment and Allocation Policy Document"
<http://www.apnic.net/drafts/ipv6/ipv6-policy-280599.html>.
That document expresses policies that arose from an open and transparent
process of discussion and feedback among the RIRs and their respective
memberships. It deals with the primary issues relating to IPv6 allocations,
including eligibilty criteria, and describes a strict addressing hierarchy,
whereby RIRs allocate sub-TLAs directly to organisations that will make use
of them.
As you know, the registry structure of the Asia Pacific region is different
to the other regions, where NIRs do not operate. However, because the
IPv6 policy document leaves the details of processing requests up to the
discretion of the regional bodies, it is now necessary to determine
relevant procedures that properly integrate the role of the NIRs.
Therefore, the purpose of this email is to initiate discussion and invite
comments on developing such procedures. NIRs and those with an interest in
the delivery of IPv6 services in countries where an NIR exists are strongly
encouraged to take part in this dicussion.
As a starting point for the discussion, APNIC has set out below
a suggested model with some initial ideas. Some of this has arisen
from discussions with individual NIRs; however, in the interests of
fairness and consistency it is important to ensure that the procedures
that are developed and implemented arise from a fully open and inclusive
process.
This should be considered as a starting point only and APNIC
encourages you to provide input as to what you believe is the best
way for the NIRs to participate in this new service.
THE SITUATION NOW
Currently, requests for IPv6 address space are circulated to the
other RIRs for comment and feedback. This is critical in ensuring
that the evaluations are aligned and consistent at a global level.
These discussions are entirely confidential between the RIRs.
Within the first 12 to 24 months of the IPv6 service the RIRs and NIRs
will gain practical experience with the operational aspects of
providing IPv6 allocation services. The procedures and policies will be
under review and the request procedures, forms and policies will, as a
result, change in the light of concrete operational experience.
SUGGESTED MODEL FOR PROCESSING REQUESTS
If an NIR has a member that is interested in IPv6 allocations
APNIC would like to invite your comments on the following
suggested procedural steps:
1. Documentation
In the interests of consistency, APNIC would like to suggest
that the APNIC IPv6 request form is used. It is available at:
http://www.apnic.net/apnic-bin/ipv6-subtla-request.pl
It is suggested that each NIR has an copy of the
form on their web site, modified in any way to suit
the needs of the NIR. If this cannot be done initially then
the NIR could "walk through" the APNIC form with the requestor,
completing it on their behalf.
Alternatively the text form can be used. This can be found at:
[http://ftp.apnic.net/apnic/docs/...]
The form would be sent to APNIC hostmasters from an NIR hostmaster
on behalf of their members, using the NIR account name. It is
important that only the relevant hostmasters from an NIR contact APNIC.
2. Evaluation
Guidelines and procedures need to be developed as there are
no established "rules" yet. Input and feedback are being sought
from other RIRs. This is important for two reasons: a) it ensures
that the RIRs are consistent in the way that the requests are
evaluated and b) it enables hostmasters to get a much broader
view of different types of requests, thereby assisting in learning.
When a request is submitted by an NIR on behalf of their member,
APNIC will forward that request to the other RIRs for comment.
Of course, the requests will only be sent to authorised hostmaster
staff and subject to the same standards of confidentiality that apply
to all APNIC requests.
In the process of evaluating the request, the RIR will (most
likely) have further comments and questions to ask the requestor.
APNIC proposes that in procesing the requests, dialogue will take
place only between APNIC and the NIR and between the NIR
and their member. The NIR would act as the intermediary should APNIC
require clarifications of any material, thereby maintaining the strength of
its relationship with its own members.
3. Registration
The database software that APNIC uses is based on the latest
version of the RIPE NCC database source code (version 2.2.1).
which has support for the "inet6num" object. As not all the
NIR whois databases are based on this software, it would be
useful to know which NIRs can support an 'inet6num' object.
For your information, the object specification type is below:
inet6num: [mandatory] [single] [primary/look-up key]
netname: [mandatory] [single] [ ]
descr: [mandatory] [multiple] [ ]
country: [mandatory] [multiple] [ ]
admin-c: [mandatory] [multiple] [inverse key]
tech-c: [mandatory] [multiple] [inverse key]
rev-srv: [optional] [multiple] [ ]
status: [generated] [single] [ ]
remarks: [optional] [multiple] [ ]
notify: [optional] [multiple] [inverse key]
mnt-by: [optional] [multiple] [inverse key]
mnt-lower: [optional] [multiple] [inverse key]
changed: [mandatory] [multiple] [ ]
source: [mandatory] [single] [ ]
When an IPv6 allocation is made, we need to create a consistent
way of recording the information. APNIC would like to suggest the
following:
a) once approved, an IPv6 allocation object will be created in
the name of the requestor, with the descr or remark attribute used to
indicate that the allocation is made to the requesting organisation via
the NIR.
inet6num: [mandatory] [single] [primary/look-up key]
netname: [NIRname]-[NIR-MEMBERname]-[DATE]
descr: whatever the member wants
descr: SubTLA delegated through [NIRname]
country: [mandatory] [multiple] [ ]
admin-c: [mandatory] [multiple] [inverse key]
tech-c: [mandatory] [multiple] [inverse key]
status: SUBTLA
mnt-by: APNIC-HM
mnt-by: NIR-HM
mnt-lower: NIR-MEMBERS-MNT
changed: [mandatory] [multiple] [ ]
source: [mandatory] [single] [ ]
The use of the mnt-by and mnt-lower is as follows. As APNIC is the
custodian of the address space and ultimately responsible, they are
referenced as a maintainer. The NIR is, however, responsible for ensuring
that the members details are up to date in this object, so they are
also listed as a maintainer. The member is asked to provide a maintainer
object name so that they can be listed as a 'mnt-lower'. This allows
them to update the APNIC database with details of their assignments.
Exactly *which* database is updated actually depends on who has support for
IPv6 objects, but ideally this would be the NIR databases.
4) Reverse DNS
All requests for reverse DNS should be completed via the on-line
APNIC form at:
http://www.apnic.net/apnic-bin/creform.pl
The process for reverse DNS delegations is almost entirely automatic.
Manual intervention occurs only when there are errors. Domain objects
are used to request reverse delegation. In the same way as with the
inetnum object, an NIR could be listed as a maintainer for each
object, so that they are able to request changes for an on behalf
of their members, if their members preferred this. The subTLA holder
themselves would also be listed as a maintainer in the mnt-by field
so that they can make direct requests to APNIC for changes if they prefer.
5) Review of procedures
APNIC suggests that a future date is set for review of the procedures. In
the interests of achieving a balance between stability and the need to gain
experience and knowledge, we would suggest that a period of one year would
be appropriate.
Summary
Once again, APNIC would like to stress that the model suggested above
is put forward as a starting point only. Please study this proposal
as it affects your organisation and your members. Public comment and
discussion are invited from all those with an interest in developing these
procedures.
APNIC looks forward to receiving your comments.
Kind regards,
Anne Lord
Manager, Member Services
APNIC
