sig-policy June 2006

sig-policy@lists.apnic.net

5 participants
5 discussions

Policy Proposal for End Site allocation policy for IPv6
by Geoff Huston 05 Sep '06

05 Sep '06

Submitters Names: Randy Bush, IIJ, Geoff Huston, APNIC SIG: Policy Title: End Site Allocation policy for IPv6 Introduction: This policy proposal proposes to amend the APNIC IPv6 address allocation policies regarding the definition of the default size of End Site assignments, and specify the calculation of address utilization efficiency relating to subsequent allocation criteria. Rationale: The current IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy (APNIC-089) indicates that end sites should be allocated a /48 as a uniform allocation states unit. This proposal alters the existing policy regarding LIR and ISP assignments to End Sites to allow the unit of assignment to be an LIR or ISP decision. In assessing the address utilization efficiency for ISPs or LIRs, the definition of an End Site for the purposes of the calculation of ISP or LIR End Site allocation efficiency is to be made according to a /56 size. For the purpose of evaluating LIR and End Site IPv6 IP address allocation efficiency using the HD ratio, the starting bit position used in the calculation is to be bit position 56. This measure, if undertaken generally by all RIRs, and assuming that further measures are undertaken by the addressing community regarding the HD ratio to a larger value, would increase the anticipated useful lifetime of IPv6 to encompass a period in excess of 100 years during which period no further allocation policy changes would be anticipated to encompass a relatively encompassing diversity of future IPv6 deployment scenarios. A more detailed rationale is available in Geoff Huston's presentation on the subject, at RIPE 50, which can be found at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-50/presentations/ripe50-plenary-wed-… Situation in other RIRs: A comparable policy proposal as been submitted to RIPE and ARIN Details: End User Allocations: End Users are assigned an End Site assignment from their LIR or ISP. The size of the assignment is a local decision for the LIR or ISP to make, using a minimum value of a /64 (only one subnet is anticipated for the End Site). ISPs and LIRs: ISPs and LIRs may chose whether to make changes to their procedures for assigning address blocks to End Sites. The threshold End Site allocation efficiency level is between 20% to 50% for most ISPs and LIRs when based on a 0.94 HD Ratio. APNIC: APNIC will amend its IPv6 allocation criteria to reflect the use of an HD ratio with the size calculation starting at bit position 56 as the unitary metric in the calculation of the ISP or LIR's end site allocation efficiency. Appendix - References This material is not formally part of the Policy Proposal. It is included here for informational purposes. 1. The IPv6 Address Plan - Geoff Huston http://www.potaroo.net/ispcol/2005-07/ipv6size.html 2. Internet Draft: Issues Related to the Management of IPv6 Address Space - Thomas Narten http://tools.ietf.org/wg/ipv6/draft-narten-iana-rir-ipv6-considerations-00.… 3. Internet Draft: IPv6 Address Allocation to End Sites - Thomas Narten, Geoff Huston & Lea Roberts http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-narten-ipv6-3177bis-48boundary-00…

4 13

prop-036-v001: Proposal to allow end sitestoreceive IPv6 allocations
by Kenny Huang 28 Jun '06

28 Jun '06

Dear SIG members After discussions with Jordi Palet, the title of prop-036-v001 is now: Proposal to modify allocation criteria in the "IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy" The proposal web pages have been updated to reflect this change of title. Regards Kenny Huang Policy SIG huangk(a)alum.sinica.edu

1 0

prop-036-v001: Proposal to allow end sites toreceive IPv6 allocations
by Kenny Huang 22 Jun '06

22 Jun '06

Dear SIG members The proposal "Proposal to allow end sites to receive IPv6 allocations" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review. It will be presented at the Policy SIG at APNIC 22 in Kaohsiung, Taiwan, 4-8 September 2006. You are invited to review and comment on the proposal on the mailing list before the meeting. The proposal's history can be found at: http://www.apnic.net/docs/policy/proposals/prop-036-v001.html Please feel free to submit your own policy proposal for discussion at APNIC 22. Regards Kenny Huang Policy SIG huangk(a)alum.sinica.edu ________________________________________________________________________ prop-036-v001: Proposal to allow end sites to receive IPv6 allocations ________________________________________________________________________ Author: Jordi Palet Martinez, Consulintel Version: 1 Date: 21 June 2006 SIG: Policy Introduction ------------ This policy modification is intended to provide a solution for the lengthy discussions that have taken place in the different regions regarding existing IPv6 policies. It also takes account of the changes that have already taken place in other Regional Internet Registry (RIR) service regions. It is an alternative solution to the existing proposals around IPv6 portable assignments. Summary of the current problem ------------------------------ It is clear that there are small Internet Service Providers (ISPs) that do not currently have 200 customers, consequently is not feasible for them to make "at least 200 /48" assignments in two years. It is, however, unfair that these ISPs have no access to IPv6 address space. Often, some organisations need to make internal assignments. Their networks may be made up of a number of sites that each has their own L2 infrastructure. In some cases, organisations may have a small number of sites, but still need their own block so that they can avoid future renumbering, if they change their upstream provider or identify a need to become multihomed. One example might be a large university that has several campuses and faculties, each requiring IPv6 addresses. It may have one or several upstream providers. The university will most likely need to be able to assign IPv6 addresses from the same block to its sites and, at the same time, be able to use one or several upstreams. The university network behaves like an internal university ISP to each of the end sites. Situation in other RIRs ----------------------- This proposal has also been submitted to RIPE NCC, LACNIC and AfriNIC regions. Some of the RIRs don't have already the 200 /48 restriction and have some text that freely allows the hostmaster to consider any submission ("reasonable number"). Details ------- The following policy changes are proposed for APNIC-089, "IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy": 1. Definition of "end site" The definition of "end site" in section 2.9 should be broadened to include a wider range of end users. This definition should be expanded to include end users that have a legal relationship with the service provider. Such legal relationships would allow end users that are part of the service provider or legally associated with the provider to be considered "end sites". For example, the different faculties or campuses of a university could be considered to be "end sites" under this proposed new definition. 2. Initial allocation criteria The following changes are proposed in section 5.1.1 of APNIC-089: a) Allow end sites to apply for an allocation b) Expand the criteria of the types of sites an organisation can provide IPv6 connectivity to include: - sites within its own organisations - sites at related organisations c) Remove the need to have a plan to make 200 /48 assignments in two years and replace it with a plan to make a reasonable number of /48 assignments in two years. 3. Policy document's status as "interim" Section 1.1 of APNIC-089 states that the policy document is "interim". It is proposed that this statement be removed. 4. Requirement to document need for multiple /48s assigned to a single end site. It is proposed that section 5.4.2 of APNIC-089, which requires that an end site document its need for more than a single /48, be removed. It is necessary to remove this to allow an end site to qualify for an initial allocation as proposed in point 2a above. Removal of this requirement also reduces the workload of APNIC staff. It seems unnecessary for the staff to evaluate whether an end site needs more than one /48. Instead it should be up to the LIR to decide what to assign to end users. An LIR should realize that such decisions will impact its own prefix utilization and that the LIR will need to justify its decisions when coming back for a new allocation. Pros/Cons --------- Advantages: There have been already clear examples and discussions in different regions about the need for this modification. The difficulty encountered in receiving IPv6 address space by some big entities that have a need to use IPv6 is a clear barrier for its deployment. By setting up this policy, we would avoid creating an unfair situation among different RIR service regions. Other RIRs have already modified the original IPv6 common policy to avoid these barriers. We could possibly say that an arbitrary number of sites in order to qualify for an allocation could be considered illegal in some countries. The APNIC community cannot set policies that could prove unlawful as this could have important implications. Disadvantages: One possible effect of this proposal would be a growth of global routing tables. This is only to be expected when new allocations are made possible under this proposal. Opposing arguments should avoid being unfair to smaller ISPs that could not justify a fixed number of assignments. Such a policy could be seen as irrational and might be comparable with imposing a similar requirement for IPv4 address space allocations, which the community would be unlikely to accept. Effect on APNIC --------------- There may be a small increase in the number of IPv6 allocation requests from LIRs that do not have a plan for 200 customers. Effect on NIRs -------------- NIRs may need to adapt their own similar policy. Otherwise, small ISPs may become APNIC LIRs to access an IPv6 prefix. Acknowledgments --------------- I would like to acknowledge all those who have contributed during many years, to the discussion of the modifications to the existing policy suggested by this proposal.

2 1

Draft of policy proposal from Jordi Palet
by Kenny Huang 07 Jun '06

07 Jun '06

Dear SIG members The following proposal "IPv6 portable assignment for end user organisations" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review. It will be presented at the Policy SIG at APNIC 22 in Kaohsiung, Taiwan, 4-8 September 2006. Please feel free to review and comment on the proposal on the mailing list before the meeting. The proposal's history can be found at: http://www.apnic.net/docs/policy/proposals/prop-034-v001.html Please feel free to submit your own policy proposal for discussion at APNIC 22. Regards Kenny Huang Policy SIG huangk(a)alum.sinica.edu ________________________________________________________________________ prop-034-v001: IPv6 portable assignment for end user organisations ________________________________________________________________________ Author: Jordi Palet Martinez, Consulintel Version: 1 Date: 29 May 2006 SIG: Policy Introduction ------------ This policy allows end user organisations that multihome, plan to multihome or require a portable IPv6 assignment for other administrative/technical reasons, to actually receive it. Summary of current problem -------------------------- In IPv4 address space, end user organisations that currently multihome, plan to multihome or have a similar need for a portable block, can request a portable IPv4 assignment from APNIC if they meet the IPv4 multihoming criteria. However, there is no equivalent policy for an end user organisation wishing to multihome using IPv6 addresses. Portable IPv6 assignments are already available to organisations that meet the IXP or critical infrastructure criteria. Situation in other RIRs ----------------------- All the RIRs are currently discussing a similar proposal. Details of your proposal ------------------------ Criteria for portable IPv6 assignments: To qualify for a portable assignment, the organisation: - must not be an IPv6 Local Internet Registry (LIR); and, - must qualify for an IPv4 portable assignment from APNIC under current IPv4 policies. This applies whether or not the organisation holds IPv4 portable assignment. Initial assignment size: The minimum size of the assignment is /32. However, a larger assignment can be provided if duly documented and justified. Subsequent assignment size: Whenever possible, further assignments will be made from adjacent address blocks, but only if duly documented and justified. Assignment 'super block': Assignments will be made from a separate 'super block' to allow LIRs to filter them, if required. Lifetime of policy: This policy is an interim solution until an alternative technical solution to multihoming in IPv6 can be developed by the community. After the technical community develops an alternative and deployable solution to multihoming in IPv6, this portable IPv6 assignment policy for multihomed organisations would expire. Expiry of assignments: Because of the probable medium to long-term consequences of this policy on routing tables, any assignments made under this proposed policy should be reclaimed by APNIC three years after a viable alternative solution to multihoming in IPv6 is developed. End user organisations that wish to avoid renumbering out of the assigned IPv6 prefix would be able to opt to become an LIR, and, if they qualify, receive an allocation that includes the same prefix the organisation was originally assigned. Advantages and disadvantages of adopting the proposed policy ------------------------------------------------------------ Advantages: In IPv4, there are organisations that qualify for a portable assignments, or that could opt to become an LIR. This may be because they need either to be multihomed or have other administrative or technical reasons for needing a portable address block. This is currently not the case for IPv6, and is perceived as a clear barrier for deployment of IPv6 in some organisations. This policy proposal addresses that barrier by means of providing a direct assignment from APNIC. Any organisation receiving such an assignment would not be allowed to make further assignments to other external organisations, but instead only to assign subnets internally within their own facilities. Assigning a /32 would make those blocks behave as other regular LIR allocated ones and follow generally accepted routing filtering practices. At the same time, the blocks would be identifiable as belonging to a special 'super block'. This would also allow organisations to become an LIR and avoid the need for renumbering. With this policy, we avoid the unfair situation among different regions, and meet the needs of any organisation that required portable address space. Organisations with a portable assignment will be in an equal position once the community agrees with a long-term technical solution and will have to either move to this new solution or become an LIR, if they qualify. Newcomers will also be in the same position. Some organisations will not opt for portable assignments under this policy because they do not need it. This would avoid placing them in an unfair situation. Those that do not believe in possible alternative solutions, but who prefer to go for a permanent portable assignment policy, have no valid reasons to oppose this proposal, as the 'sunset period' should only be in effect once a suitable solution had been agreed. This proposal should not interfere with their plans. Some organisations may qualify to become an LIR now, and avoid using this temporary assignment. However if their only reason to become an LIR is to get a portable assignment, then it may a better control for the routing table size in the long-term, if they use the option offered by this proposal. This would be fairer to the wider Internet community. The 'temporary' nature of this assignment must be considered long-term, as we may expect alternative solutions to be available in around three to four years. This takes no account of a transition period. Therefore, asking for a change after six or seven years should be acceptable to all. Disadvantages: The possible effect of this proposal is the growth of global routing tables to levels that, together with the existing and forecast IPv4 routing entries, could create significant issues for operators unless vendors can provide products that address such issues. Even if such technical solutions were found, the proposal could still have a major impact on the cost and/or depreciation period for infrastructure investments. For this reason, this proposal comes with a fixed 'sunset' period, dependant upon the date when an alternative technically viable solution is available and accepted by the Internet community. A temporary /32 assignment should not be seen as a waste of address space. It would bring with it the advantage of removing the needs for new special filters and avoiding renumbering to those that could become LIRs. Effect on APNIC members ----------------------- N/A Effect on NIRs -------------- N/A Acknowledgments --------------- I would like to acknowledge input received for the first version of this proposal from Marcelo Bagnulo and Lea Roberts.

6 7

A second policy proposal for the Policy SIG
by Kenny Huang 05 Jun '06

05 Jun '06

Dear SIG members The proposal "IPv6 portable assignment for multihoming" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review. It will be presented at the Policy SIG at APNIC 22 in Kaohsiung, Taiwan, 4-8 September 2006. You are invited to review and comment on the proposal on the mailing list before the meeting. The proposal's history can be found at: http://www.apnic.net/docs/policy/proposals/prop-035-v001.html Please feel free to submit your own policy proposal for discussion at APNIC 22. Regards Kenny Huang Policy SIG huangk(a)alum.sinica.edu ________________________________________________________________________ prop-035-v001: IPv6 portable assignment for multihoming ________________________________________________________________________ Authors: Katsuyasu Toyama Takashi Arano Tomohiro Fujisaki Toshinori Ishii Kosuke Ito Dai Nishino, Noriaktsu Ohishi Izumi Okutani Version: 1 Date: 2 June 2006 SIG: Policy Introduction ------------ This policy allows 'end-sites' to be assigned IPv6 portable addresses only if the end-sites are multihomed, or plan to be multihomed. Summary ------- The current policy does not allow IPv6 portable assignment to any end-sites. This obstructs end-site organizations which need redundancy in internet connectivity for stable network operation. Shim6, another multihoming technology discussed in IETF, is not a perfect replacement of the current multihoming technology using BGP due to traffic engineering. In addition, it will take time to standardize and implement Shim6. Situation -------- ARIN has been discussing the IPv6 Provider-independent address. The draft was proposed in 2005 and moved to the last call after the meeting consensus in April 2006. RIPE started PI discussion at RIPE in this May. AFRINIC and LACNIC discussed similar proposals recently in their Open Policy meetings. In those regions, the issue has been returned to their public mailing lists for further discussion. Note: APNIC uses the term "portable" rather than "provider-independent" (PI). Details ------- (1) Assignment target: End-sites which are multihomed or plan to be multihomed, regardless of their size. (2) Assignment criteria: (2-a) The end site which is assigned IPv6 portable address space must be multihomed using the assigned portable address space in three (3) months. (2-b) If the portable address space is not used for multihoming after three (3) months, the address space must be reclaimed. (2-c) The end site which is assigned IPv6 portable address space must pay the fee for the space. (3) Portable address space: (3-a) The portable assignment should be made from a specified block separate from address space used for portable allocations (3-b) The portable assignment size to an end-site should be the same size as in non-portable assignments, currently /48, or a shorter prefix if the end-site can justify it. Pros/Cons --------- Advantages: (1) Provides the solution for end-sites which require redundancy in IPv6 and currently not able to do so due to the lack of technical solutions. (2) Assignment of the portable address space is limited only to 'multihoming purposes'; only end-sites which are or planned to be multihomed can be assigned a portable address. This reduces the consumption of portable address space as well as the growth of the global routing table. (3) Portable assigned address space is separate from portable allocated address space, therefore: (3-1) It helps preventing 'punching holes' in the portable allocated address space because prefixes which are longer than /32 can be filtered in portable allocated space. (3-2) it is relatively easy to abandon the portable assigned address space in case some better techinical solutions are developed in the future. Disadvantages: It may lead to growth in the global routing table, but we think the growth is almost the same in case that providers and end-sites start using 'punching holes' for multihoming. Effect on APNIC --------------- No direct effect on the existing APNIC members, nor changes to the current IPv6 allocation criteria. Effect on NIRs -------------- NIR can adopt this policy at its discretion.

4 10

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

sig-policy June 2006