sig-policy September 2011

sig-policy@lists.apnic.net

27 participants
19 discussions

Re: [sig-policy] Need to understand logic behind assigning /64 IPv6 addresses
by Mark Tinka 21 Sep '12

21 Sep '12

On Sunday, September 18, 2011 01:43:13 AM Owen DeLong wrote: > Multiple prefix sizes, address fragmentation, etc. > Admittedly, it's a small complication, but, it is a > complication. > Further, it violates the principle of least surprise as > your organization scales and brings in new engineers. A good v6 address assignment policy for one's infrastructure is neither difficult to create nor maintain. No issues here since we started running v6 over 6 years ago. We know how v6 can make address management within an ISP's network brain-dead to maintain, but it's not reason enough to use /64's where we can comfortably use /112's and still not overly complicate our lives. > So did I. I was being a little tongue in cheek/snarky > with just presenting the math on the number of > addresses,... I know what you were getting at, with multiple v6 addresses on a single interface, e.t.c. > but the reality is that there may be some > cases where having multiple addresses for one end of a > point to point or the other (or both) may prove useful. > These are admittedly rare. Agree, but having run multiple networks with v6 over the last several years, we're yet to find with a reason that has required us to have multiple addresses on point-to-point links either between infrastructure, or between AS domains. Some things really are that simple :-). Obviously, I can't speak for anyone else's network, just ours. Mark.

8 17

Re: [sig-policy] Article of possible interest to the community
by Mike Burns 11 Jan '12

11 Jan '12

Hi Owen, > That concept has been floated multiple times and is as ill-conceived now as ever. > Owen Times are changing. What was once conceived of as an orderly transition from IPv4 to IPv6 has bogged down and the current situation is one where APNIC has run out of available IPv4 addresses while the Internet is still 99.7% IPv4 traffic. Asian operators have little choice now but to enter the IPv4 transfer market. Since there is no existing policy mechanism for the transfer of ARIN addresses to APNIC, Asian operators will logically look for an alternate source. Legacy addresses which are not under any agreement with any RIR can be legally bought and sold. And there is no restriction on these addresses being routed from any region on the planet. If the RIRs fail to adopt policies which will facilitate interregional transfers, and there is no law precluding these transactions of legacy space, then these transactions will occur. The author of the article I sent points out that the current situation drives the need for a private registry for legacy addresses. If a private registry is anathema to you, please consider pushing policies in the ARIN region which would facilitate global transfers and reduce the need for a private registry. Because if the RIRs refuse to recognize rational business transactions, these transactions will be driven either to a private registry, or worse, driven "off the books" entirely. Regards, Mike Burns ----- Original Message ----- From: Owen DeLong To: Mike Burns Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2011 2:53 PM Subject: Re: [sig-policy] Article of possible interest to the community That concept has been floated multiple times and is as ill-conceived now as ever. Owen On Aug 18, 2011, at 8:00 AM, Mike Burns wrote: Hi Owen, I came across a response to Mr. Vixie's article and thought it might be of interest to the APNIC community, particularly as it mentions pending IPv4 legacy address sales to Asian customers. http://techliberation.com/2011/08/15/trading-ipv4-addresses-starts-making-i… The concept elucidated is a private registry for legacy addresses which would have no restrictions on interregional sales, thus allowing the legal transfer of legacy IPv4 address into Asia. Regards, Mike Burns ----- Original Message ----- From: Owen DeLong To: sig-policy(a)apnic.net SIG List Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2011 8:31 AM Subject: [sig-policy] Article of possible interest to the community I came across this ACM article and thought it might be of interest to the APNIC community as well... http://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=2008216 Owen -------------------------------------------------------------------------- * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy(a)lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy

10 24

Monthly List Reminder
by noreply＠apnic.net 30 Sep '11

30 Sep '11

Dear Subscriber, This is the monthly reminder of subscription information for the sig-policy list, hosted at APNIC. For subscription information including how to un-subscribe go to http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy Thank you for participating in this discussion. Kind Regards, List administrator

1 0

Policy talk in the media - India favours change in Net number resource allocation
by Dean Pemberton 27 Sep '11

27 Sep '11

Just stumbled across this article. "India favours change in Net number resource allocation: It wants countrywide allocation in Asia-Pacific region rather than to companies" http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/internet/article2485006.ece I think there's a lot of work required before we can reach any sort of consensus on the issue of how to allocate large IPv6 blocks and it would be good to get that discussion started well in advance of New Delhi. Following on from the discussion in Busan, where are people's heads with the three proposals which got punted back to the list? Regards, Dean

3 2

Need to understand logic behind assigning /64 IPv6 addresses
by Usman Latif 22 Sep '11

22 Sep '11

Hi, I am trying to understand the reasoning and logic behind IETF/IANA's decision to recommend assignments of /64 addresses to residential CPEs ?? In my opinion, this would result in a lot of unnecessary wastage of IPv6 address space. Can someone help me to point towards the drivers behind this thinking? IMO a /96 IPv6 assignment to residential customers is more than enough. regards Usman

14 39

Test
by Sanjaya 20 Sep '11

20 Sep '11

Hi, This is just a test as we've just received a report that some of our mailing lists are broken. This message can be safely ignored. Regards, -- ________________________________________________________________________ Sanjaya email: sanjaya(a)apnic.net Services Director, APNIC sip: sanjaya(a)voip.apnic.net http://www.apnic.net phone: +61 7 3858 3100 ________________________________________________________________________ * Sent by email to save paper. Print only if necessary.

2 2

Re: [sig-policy] Need to understand logic behind assigning /64 IPv6 addresses
by Usman Latif 19 Sep '11

19 Sep '11

> The default router isn't discovered through ND so much as through Router Discovery which is part of the same RA > packets used for SLAAC. Okay then please explain to me the following statement from RFC-4861 (ND for IPv6) which has no dependancy on SLAAC (RFC-4862): I quote: Page-11 (http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4861): "On multicast-capable links, each router periodically multicasts a Router Advertisement packet announcing its availability. A host receives Router Advertisements from all routers, building a list of default routers. Routers generate Router Advertisements frequently enough that hosts will learn of their presence within a few minutes, but not frequently enough to rely on an absence of advertisements to detect router failure; a separate Neighbor Unreachability Detection algorithm provides failure detection." regards Usman From: Owen DeLong <owen(a)delong.com> To: Usman Latif <osmankh(a)yahoo.com> Cc: mtinka(a)globaltransit.net; Skeeve Stevens <Skeeve(a)eintellego.net> Sent: Monday, 19 September 2011 5:13 AM Subject: Re: [sig-policy] Need to understand logic behind assigning /64 IPv6 addresses On Sep 18, 2011, at 4:25 AM, Usman Latif wrote: Mark - I do not see any relevance between SLAAC and getting information about "Default Router". The SLAAC is an extra feature as per RFC 4862. > >On the other hand, default router can be discovered by using IPv6 ND as per RFC 4861. > > The default router isn't discovered through ND so much as through Router Discovery which is part of the same RA packets used for SLAAC. So why do we think that until the draft (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-droms-dhc-dhcpv6-default-router-00) gets mature enough, we cannot use DHCPv6 effectively for high-volume single-user customer scenarios? > > Because the people running the customer network may not want to use DHCP and may prefer SLAAC? So when folks say that "we need atleast /64 subnets for all sites (including residential single-user customers) because SLAAC would fail" then we should ask ourselves the question: > > You are still coming back to this theory of /64 per site. It's /64 per segment. A site should be a /48. - Do we have alternatives to SLAAC? >I'd say yes we do (DHCPv6 and ND)... > > There are alternatives, but, there are many environments where SLAAC is useful. - Is SLAAC the reason we are wasting 18446744073709551616 worth of address space for residential sites? >I'd say this is not a good enough reason... > > I believe you are incorrect. I believe it is a perfectly good reason to use that many addresses. Especially since those bits were placed there in the protocol specifically to be used in that manner. But without going into an endless debate on this subject, I think we all have our own perspectives of looking at things and when I initially started my query "Need to understand logic behind /64 IPv6 addresses" - I can only say that I am only partially convinced and cannot convince myself with the reasoning provided so far that its worth wasting that much address space using a one-size-fit-all approach of /64 - especially as I said in the case of home-user CPEs etc. > > You are mistaken sir. It is very much worth doing so. So much so that we added the bits to the protocol so that they could be used in that way. Thanks everyone for your involvement and I hope IPv6 fulfills our addressing requirements for thousands of years to come ...... :) > > I doubt that the protocol has any chance of lasting that long. There are many scaling limits unrelated to address space which will likely obsolete the IPv6 protocol. I hope it achieves a nice 50 year lifespan, but, I think even that may be optimistic. This is not the first time we've had to change protocols and I doubt it will be the last. Owen > >Regards >Usman Latif > > > > >From: Mark Tinka <mtinka(a)globaltransit.net> >To: Usman Latif <osmankh(a)yahoo.com> >Cc: Owen DeLong <owen(a)delong.com>; Skeeve Stevens <Skeeve(a)eintellego.net>; "sig-policy(a)lists.apnic.net" <sig-policy(a)lists.apnic.net> >Sent: Sunday, 18 September 2011 4:32 PM >Subject: Re: [sig-policy] Need to understand logic behind assigning /64 IPv6 addresses > >On Sunday, September 18, 2011 11:24:39 AM Usman Latif wrote: > >> I sense the recommendations for /64 assignments even to >> residential users looks more political than technical. > >I think it's simpler than that, Usman :-). > >Because SLAAC, today, is much more useful than DHCPv6 when >it comes to acquiring a default gateway for your host, /64's >makes sense because SLAAC will work only if an interface is >assigned with a /64 address. > >The day DHCPv6 gets the Default Router option implemented >(along with much-needed DHCPv6 Snooping capability), you may >begin to see flexibility in this area, whether it's good or >bad. > >> It seems that because end-hosts and other systems have >> already been built with more support for stateless >> autoconfig, this may act as a roadblock for us. > >DHCPv6 is now shipping in Mac OS X: Lion (10.7), which was >one of the major OS's out there still lacking it. It's just >that without a Router option in DHCPv6, widespread use in >enterprise situations that prefer centralized address >management is still limited. > >> First of all, the RFC-6177 does not give the reasoning >> behind suggesting /64 as being technically motivated but >> more from the perspective of growth and scalability - I >> for one am having a hard time imagining how a >> "residential site" can grow to such a length that it >> would need 2^64 address space. I quote from 6177: > >The requirement for growth in home networks being supported >by SLAAC, which in turn requires /64 prefix lengths on CPE >home gateways, is implied by RFC 6177. > >Things could be different if DHCPv6 becomes a viable >alternative to SLAAC. > >> As regards stateless auto-configuration, one might argue >> that we have alternatives like RFC-3315 (DHCPv6) are >> also available but this may make the stateless >> implementation completely redundant (?) > >If DHCPv6 actually becomes operationally similar to DHCPv4, >I think we shall have 3 camps: > > o those that prefer SLAAC + DHCPv4. > o those that prefer SLAAC + DHCPv6. > o those that prefer just DHCPv6. > >Cheers, > >Mark. > > >

1 0

Re: [sig-policy] Need to understand logic behind assigning /64 IPv6addresses
by Terence Zhang YH 16 Sep '11

16 Sep '11

Hi, I don't know exactly the logic behind /64, but if you argue that /96 is enough for residential, people can also argue 64bits or even 32bits is also more than enough for service network subnets, in addition to that, the potential growth of subnets is not huge, but the potential growth of devices type is unpredictable. Regards Terence ----- Original Message ----- From: Usman Latif To: sig-policy(a)lists.apnic.net Sent: Friday, September 16, 2011 4:09 PM Subject: [sig-policy] Need to understand logic behind assigning /64 IPv6addresses Hi, I am trying to understand the reasoning and logic behind IETF/IANA's decision to recommend assignments of /64 addresses to residential CPEs ?? In my opinion, this would result in a lot of unnecessary wastage of IPv6 address space. Can someone help me to point towards the drivers behind this thinking? IMO a /96 IPv6 assignment to residential customers is more than enough. regards Usman ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy(a)lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy

2 1

Fwd: [AC-COORD] AfriNIC AFPUB-2010-v4-006 [GPP-IPv4-2010] passes last call
by Andy Linton 15 Sep '11

15 Sep '11

For your information andy ----- Forwarded message from McTim <dogwallah(a)gmail.com> ----- Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2011 07:50:52 +0300 From: McTim <dogwallah(a)gmail.com> To: AfriNIC Resource Policy Discussion List <rpd(a)afrinic.net> Subject: [AfriNIC-rpd] Final Consensus Declaration on Global Policy for Post Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation Mechanisms by the IANA (AFPUB-2010-v4-006) Dear Colleagues, The last call period has now closed for the Global Policy for Post Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation Mechanisms by the IANA (AFPUB-2010-v4-006) policy proposal. No objections were received on this proposal during the last call period. This policy proposal was also deemed to have reached consensus at AfriNIC-14 face-to-face Public Policy Meeting. The Policy Discussion Working Group Co-Chairs, therefore, hereby declare that consensus has been achieved. The PDWG Co-Chairs will now proceed to report to the AfriNIC Board on this proposal and will recommend ratification by the Board. Regards, PDWG Co-Chairs _______________________________________________ rpd mailing list rpd(a)afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd ----- End forwarded message -----

3 3

prop-100 Returned to mailing list
by Andy Linton 06 Sep '11

06 Sep '11

Dear colleagues prop-100 National IP Address Plan - Allocation of country-wide IP address blocks, did not reach consensus at the APNIC 32 Policy SIG. Therefore, this proposal is being returned to the author and the Policy SIG mailing list for further discussion. Proposal details ---------------- This proposal calls for the reservation of adequate IPv6 address space for each economy in the Asia Pacific region. Future allocations of this space to be made to organizations and stakeholders in the usual way. Proposal details including the full text of the proposal, history, and links to mailing list discussions are available at: http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-100 Regards Andy, Skeeve, and Masato _______________________________________________________________________ prop-100-v001: National IP Address Plan - Allocation of country-wide IP address blocks _______________________________________________________________________ Author: Rakesh Mohan Agarwal <ddgnt-dot(a)nic.in> Version: 2 Date: 30 August 2011 1. Introduction --------------- A proposal was submitted to APNIC community on 29th July 2011 for the reservation of a contiguous IPv6 address block for different organizations / stakeholders in an economy. In that proposal I have tried to put forward some issues regarding the current practice of APNIC in the allocation of IPv6 addresses. Further clarifications were given by me on 17/8, 22/8 and 28/8 against various comments and observations received during the period after that also. In the light of the above proposal and clarifications issued by me, I am submitting a revised version of Prop-100 for better understanding of the community members giving some background of why this proposal was submitted by India. The Government of India released a national IPv6 policy in July 2010 in which it took the following important decisions – 1. All major service providers will target to handle IPv6 traffic and offer IPv6 services by December 2011 2. All central and state government ministries and departments, including its PSUs, shall start using IPv6 services by March-2012 3. Formation of India IPv6 Task Force For the implementation of the above policy decisions many discussions were held with service providers and organizations in which they were of the opinion that there should be proper address planning for different organizations within the economy. So taking cue from this, Government of India (Department of Telecommunications) set up a committee for formulation of a National IPv6 address policy. In the 2nd meeting of the committee held on 18th July 2011 in New Delhi, members were of the opinion that India as a whole should request for the reservation of a suitably-sized block of IPv6 addresses from APNIC. This block can be allocated to different organizations by keeping in view the long term planning perspective. So it was decided that this issue should be taken up with APNIC. As this was a policy related issue, and other economies in the APNIC region may also have similar needs, therefore, the proposal was put up to APNIC for address block reservation at the economy level for subsequent allocation to different organizations within the economies in the APNIC region. 2. Summary ---------- Right now IPv6 addresses are being allocated to individual organizations in different economies by APNIC within a certain policy framework, which was developed in the IPv4 era. But there are certain concerns with the above APNIC policy - (a) Contiguous address block allocation is not ensured by APNIC when an organization goes back to APNIC for further allocation (reapplying after more than one year) (b) Non provision of address space for future organizations in economies who are not in a position (or not aware) to ask for addresses at present. APNIC policy does not currently allow address blocks to be allocated at the economy level, so through this proposal, we are seeking a change in the policy for reservation of adequate IPv6 address space economy wise for further allocation to different organizations and stakeholders within the economy. 3. Situation in other RIRs -------------------------- No other RIRs presently have a program to assess the needs of individual economies in their region and reserve appropriately-sized address blocks. However, economies in other RIRs may have similar needs and a similar program of assessment may be appropriate. 4. Details ---------- In the current policy framework of APNIC, addresses are allocated to different organizations in different economies when they are able to demonstrate their need for those addresses and they apply for them. However, in this process two requirements, mentioned in summary above, are not taken into consideration. In the era of IPv4, when the addresses were in severe shortage, such a demonstrated need policy was relevant but in the era of IPv6 it is not. IPv6 addresses are in abundance and their planning and distribution is also at a very nascent stage. The main objective of this proposal is to ensure that all economies (and the different present and future organizations in those economies) can ensure they will get a suitable share of the IPv6 address space, in one or more large contiguous blocks, whether they need it now or at a later date. This will also help different organizations in different economies to plan their networks in a more effective manner as they will have a reasonably fair idea of the IPv6 address space allocation in future. This proposal can be implemented by APNIC in following manner. (A) Analysis and Projection of Requirements Each economy in the APNIC region is different in terms of population, population growth rate, GDP growth rate, mobile, internet and broadband penetration growth rate, social requirements etc. There could be many other factors, which could be taken into consideration. These factors would help to make an aggregate estimate of the present and future IPv6 address requirements of all organizations and stakeholders in each economy. The analysis of each economy in the APNIC region could be conducted in one of the following ways - 1. By APNIC, since it has more experience across different economies and different RIRs. 2. Alternatively, a representative body in each economy, which could be the government of that economy or a prominent industry association or any other recognised body, may be approached by APNIC for estimating the needs of that economy. However, in this case APNIC may need to\ conduct awareness programmes for their education and sufficient time is also required for making such estimation. 3. Any other suitable mechanism deemed fit by APNIC for doing such estimation. Through these analysis and projection estimates, economy wise IPv6 address requirement (based on the requirements of different organizations and stakeholders) will emerge. This process will definitely take some time. (B) Reservation of the IPv6 address space for different economies (for their organizations and stakeholders) by APNIC Based on the above projections and estimates, APNIC may keep one or more suitably sized blocks reserved for different economies for ultimate use of organizations and stakeholders of those economies. APNIC may also keep some large blocks unreserved, i.e. not reserved for any economy in the beginning, for any sudden unforeseen requirements in future. The allocation of addresses from these reserved blocks to organizations and stakeholders in different economies may be done directly by APNIC or through an NIR (wherever existing) as it is doing at present. Ultimately these addresses will be allocated to individual organizations / stakeholders and not to the economy. As an example, in case of India, after some discussions with service providers, internet associations and other stakeholders, an estimate of current and future requirements of a /16 block, initially, has been suggested. However, the firm requirement has to be deliberated based upon a detailed study as suggested above. Detailed operational issues for implementing this policy, if approved, will have to be deliberated upon separately. 5. Pros/Cons ------------ Advantages: 1. The various IPv6 awareness programmes for different economies, the various studies for estimation of needs of different economies and management of the reserved IPv6 blocks as mentioned above will no doubt increase the job of APNIC in the immediate future, but over a long period of time, this would prove to be very beneficial for IPv6 deployment and also make the job of APNIC easier since APNIC would be very clear on what future allocations it can make. 2. The economies and their organizations will also benefit since they will have a fair idea of what they will get in future and they can plan accordingly for the long term for IPv6 deployment. Disadvantages: 1. There may be short term workload/financial implications for APNIC for analysis and projection studies, training and awareness etc. These however, should not be a constraint because otherwise also APNIC has to work for IPv6 awareness and its deployment in all economies in APNIC region. 6. Effect on APNIC ------------------ 1. It would prove to be very beneficial for IPv6 deployment and also make the job of APNIC easier since APNIC would be very clear on what future allocations it can make. 2. Address allocation will be more organized and orderly. 7. Effect on NIRs ----------------- NIRs can allocate IP addresses to individual members in its geographical area from the reserved blocks as per the actual projections of individual members.

2 1

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

sig-policy September 2011