sig-policy June 2012

sig-policy@lists.apnic.net

5 participants
5 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

Monthly List Reminder
by noreply＠apnic.net 30 Jun '12

30 Jun '12

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

Call for Policy Proposals - APNIC 34
by Andy Linton 25 Jun '12

25 Jun '12

Dear Colleagues If you believe APNIC policy could be improved, suggest a change by submitting a policy proposal. Policy proposals submitted before Friday 27 July 2012 will be discussed at the APNIC 34 Policy SIG. Submit your policy proposal now for discussion at APNIC 34. There are two ways to submit a policy proposal: 1. Use the online form at: http://www.apnic.net/community/policy/proposals/submit 2. Send your proposal in TEXT format to <policy(a)apnic.net>. A template is available below. We encourage you to submit proposals well before the deadline. This gives the community more time to consider your proposal and gives you the opportunity to amend your proposal, if needed, based on the community's feedback. More information ---------------- APNIC's policy development process is explained at: http://www.apnic.net/policy View current and past policy proposals at: http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals Learn more about APNIC 34 at: http://conference.apnic.net/34 We look forward to seeing you in Phnom Penh, Cambodia! APNIC Policy SIG Chairs Andy, Skeeve, and Masato <<<<< Policy Proposal Template >>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- POLICY NAME ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Author: Email: Co-authors: Emails: 1. Introduction ---------------- <-- Explain your proposal in one or two sentences --> 2. Summary of the current problem ---------------------------------- <-- Describe the situation that this proposal is intended to address --> 3. Situation in other RIRs --------------------------- <-- If there are similar policies, in other regions, or if you plan to submit this proposal in other regions, indicate them here --> 4. Details ----------- <-- Describe your proposal in detail --> 5. Pros/Cons ------------- Advantages: - <-- What would be the main advantages if the APNIC community adopted this proposal? --> Disadvantages: - <-- What would be the main disadvantages if the APNIC community adopted this proposal? --> 6. Effect on APNIC Members --------------------------- <-- Briefly explain how you think this may affect APNIC members. For example, would members need to update their internal IT systems to meet the requirements of the policy --> 7. Effect on NIRs ------------------ <-- Briefly explain how this proposal might affect National Internet Registries (NIRs) and/or their Members --> 8. References -------------- <-- If applicable -->

1 0

prop-101 Returned to mailing list and Newversion posted
by Masato Yamanishi 19 Jun '12

19 Jun '12

Dear SIG members # I'm sending this notification on behalf of Andy Linton, Policy SIG chair Version 3 of prop-101 Removing multihoming requirement for IPv6 portable assignments, did not reach consensus at the APNIC 33 Policy SIG. Therefore, this proposal is being returned to the author and the Policy SIG mailing list for further discussion. The author has submitted a revised proposal, prop-101-v004, for further discussion on the Policy SIG mailing list. Proposal details --------------------- This is a proposal to change the "IPv6 address allocation and assignment policy" to allow portable (that is, provider independent or PI) assignments of IPv6 address blocks to be made by APNIC to any organization with due justification and payment of standard fees, removing the current requirement that the requestor is or plans to be multihomed. 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-101 Regards Andy, Skeeve, and Masato ------------------------------------------------------------------------ prop-101-v004: Removing multihoming requirement for IPv6 portable assignments ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. Introduction --------------- This a proposal to change the "IPv6 address allocation and assignment policy" to allow portable (that is, provider independent or PI) assignments of IPv6 address blocks to be made by APNIC to any organization with due justification and payment of standard fees, removing the current requirement that the requestor is or plans to be multihomed. 2. Summary of the current problem --------------------------------- Current APNIC policy only permits portable assignments of IPv6 addresses to be made to an organization "if it is currently multihomed or plans to be multihomed within three months." [1] This requirement may unnecessarily complicate the implementation of IPv6 in some networks that are large or complex and use static assignment of addresses. It is therefore proposed to remove this requirement. IPv6 models tend to assume widespread assignment of registered IPv6 addresses to equipment throughout a network; so if provider assigned IPv6 addresses have been used in an organization's network, then any change of ISP would require a renumbering of the entire network. Such renumbering may be feasible if the network is small or dynamically assigned (for example, through use of prefix-delegation), but renumbering a large, statically-assigned network would be a significant operational challenge, and may not be practically possible. Although it is likely that many large networks would be multihomed, there will be technical or commercial reasons why some will not be; currently those networks cannot obtain portable IPv6 assignments from APNIC, and would need to use assignments from their ISPs, and accept the associated difficulties of future renumbering if they do so. This consideration and complexity could significantly delay IPv6 use by the affected organisations, which is not desirable. There is a risk that removing the multihoming requirement could cause a significant increase in demand for portable assignments, which in turn could cause the Internet routing tables to grow beyond manageable levels. It is not feasible to quickly generate any realistic model of likely demand increase which would arise from the proposed policy change, but it is argued that any such increase would only be of a scale to produce a manageable impact on global routing, for reasons including: - Organizations would only be likely to seek portable addressing if they believed it were essential for their operations, as provider assigned IPv6 addressing would be likely to be offered automatically and at no additional cost with their Internet services from their ISP; - APNIC membership fees would be expected to naturally discourage unnecessary requests, as these would be a far greater cost than that for provider assigned addressing; - Many or most organizations that require portable addressing will be multihomed, so the demand increase caused by removing the multihomed requirement should be small; - Only a limited set of an ISP's products is likely to allow customers to use portable assignments if they are singly-homed. 3.Situation in other RIRs ------------------------- APNIC is now the only RIR remaining with an absolute requirement for multihoming for portable address assignments. AfriNIC: The "Policy for IPv6 ProviderIndependent (PI) Assignment for End-Sites" [2] does not mention any requirement for multihoming; ARIN: Section 6.5.8 of the "ARIN Number Resource Policy Manual" [3] only identifies multihoming as one of several alternative criteria for direct IPv6 assignment to end-user organizations; LACNIC: There is no mention of multihoming anywhere in the IPv6 section (Section 4) of the current LACNIC Policy Manual (v1.8 - 07/12/2011) [4]. RIPE: The latest version (RIPE-545 [5]) published in January 2012 of the "IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy" does not mention multihoming, removing the requirement that existed in previous versions of the document. 4.Details --------- It is proposed that section 5.9.1 of APNIC's "IPv6 address allocation and assignment policy" (apnic-089-v010) is rewritten to remove the absolute multihoming requirement for portable assignments, and to incorporate the following conditions: A. Portable IPv6 assignments are to be made only to organizations that have either joined APNIC as members or have signed the non-member agreement, under the standard terms & conditions and paying the standard fees applicable for their respective category. B. An organization will be automatically eligible for a minimum IPv6 portable assignment if they have previously justified an IPv4 portable assignment from APNIC. C. Requests by organizations that have not previously received an IPv4 portable assignment will need to be accompanied by: (a) a reasonable technical justification indicating why IPv6 addresses from an ISP or other LIR are unsuitable - examples of suitable technical justifications may include (but are not limited to): (i) Demonstration that the relevant network is statically addressed and of a size or complexity that would make IPv6 renumbering operationally impractical within an acceptable business period, together with evidence that dynamic or multiple addressing options are either not available from the relevant ISP or are unsuitable for use by the organization; (ii) Demonstration that any future renumbering of the relevant network could potentially interfere with services of a critical medical or civic nature; (b) A detailed plan of intended usage of the proposed address block over at least the 12 months following allocation. D. The minimum IPv6 portable assignment to any organization is to be an address block of /48. A portable assignment of a larger block (that is, a block with a prefix mask less than /48) may be made: (a) If it is needed to ensure that the HD-ratio for the planned network assignments from the block remains below the applied HD-ratio threshold specified in Section 5.3.1 of the APNIC IPv6 policy [6], or; (b) If addressing is required for 2 or more of the organization's sites operating distinct and unconnected networks. Any requests for address blocks larger than the minimum size will need to be accompanied by a detailed plan of the intended usage of the proposed assignment over at least the following 12 months. E. In order to minimise routing table impacts: (a) Only one IPv6 address block is to be given to an organization upon an initial request for a portable assignment; subnets of this block may be assigned by the organization to its different sites if needed; (b) It is recommended that the APNIC Secretariat applies sparse allocation methodologies so that any subsequent requests from an organization for additional portable addressing would be accommodated where possible through a change of prefix mask of a previous assignment (for example, 2001:db8:1000::/48 -> ] 2001:db8:1000::/44), rather than through allocation of a new prefix. An additional prefix should only be allocated where it is not possible to simply change the prefix mask. (c) Any subsequent request for an additional portable assignment to an organization must be accompanied by information demonstrating: (i) Why an additional portable assignment is required, and why an assignment from from an ISP or other LIR cannot be used for this purpose instead; (ii) That the use of previous portable IPv6 allocations generated the minimum possible number of global routing announcements and the maximum aggregation of that block; (iii) How the additional assignment would be managed to minimise the growth of the global IPv6 routing table. (d) The APNIC Secretariat will produce reports of the number of portable IPv6 assignments requested, preferably as an automatically-generated daily graph of the number of cumulative IPv6 portable assignments published publically on the APNIC website, or else as regular (at a minimum, quarterly) reports sent to the sig-policy mailing list detailing the incremental assignments of new IPv6 portable assignments made since the last report, plus the cumulative total of IPv6 portable assignments. 5.Pros/Cons ----------- Advantages: - This proposal would provide access to portable IPv6 addresses for all organizations with valid needs, removing a potential impediment to industry standard IPv6 addressing for large singly-homed networks - This change would align APNIC with the policies of all other RIRs on portable assignments Disadvantages: - There would be a risk of an unmanageably large increase in global IPv6 routing table size and APNIC workload if there were to be a substantial and widespread increase in demand for portable assignments arising from the removal of the multihoming requirement - But demand is expected to be limited by the requirements specified in section 4 for justifications and APNIC standard fees, as well as other industry factors such as the capability of Internet services to support portable addressing. 6.Effect on APNIC ----------------- The impact of this proposal on the APNIC Secretariat would depend on the increase of demand for portable assignments. Even if demand is eventually large, it is unlikely that there will be an significant change in hostmaster workloads for a long time because of the slow rate of take up of IPv6, and so there should be sufficient time to identify and take steps to modify policies and processes if necessary to manage the increase. 7.Effect on NIRs ---------------- This proposal specifically applies to portable assignments made by APNIC. It would be the choice of each NIR as to whether they would adopt a similar policy. References: ----------- [1] Section 5.9.1, IPv6 address allocation and assignment policy, http://www.apnic.net/policy/ipv6-address-policy#5.9 [2] http://www.afrinic.net/docs/policies/AFPUB-2007-v6-001.htm [3] https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#six58 [4] http://www.lacnic.net/en/politicas/manual5.html [5] http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-545 [6]Section 5.3.1, IPv6 address allocation and assignment policy, http://www.apnic.net/policy/ipv6-address-policy#5.3 _______________________________________________ Sig-policy-chair mailing list Sig-policy-chair(a)apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy-chair

14 33

ARIN Inter-RIR transfers policy adopted
by Andy Linton 18 Jun '12

18 Jun '12

Our policy work on Inter-RIR transfers has been complemented by the ARIN policies. While this may provide some short term relief for those needing IPv4 resources, I hope we still see IPv6 deployment as the way ahead. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [arin-ppml] Board Adopts Draft Policies - June 2012 Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 13:56:24 -0400 From: ARIN <info(a)arin.net> To: arin-ppml(a)arin.net On 6 June 2012 the ARIN Board of Trustees adopted the following policies: ARIN-2011-1: ARIN Inter-RIR Transfers ARIN-2012-1: Clarifying requirements for IPv4 transfers ARIN-2012-3: ASN Transfers These policies will be implemented no later than 31 July 2012. Board of Trustees Meeting Minutes are available at: https://www.arin.net/about_us/bot/index.html Draft Policy and Policy Proposal texts are available at: https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html The ARIN Policy Development Process can be found at: https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html Regards, Communications and Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) _______________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML(a)arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact info(a)arin.net if you experience any issues.

2 1

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

sig-policy June 2012