sig-policy August 2014

sig-policy@lists.apnic.net

4 participants
3 discussions

New version of prop-111: Request-based expansion of IPv6 default allocation size
by Masato Yamanishi 02 Sep '14

02 Sep '14

Dear SIG members A new version of the proposal “prop-111: Request-based expansion of IPv6 default allocation size has been sent to the Policy SIG for review. Information about earlier versions is available from: http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-111 You are encouraged to express your views on the proposal: - Do you support or oppose the proposal? - Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear? - What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more effective? Please find the text of the proposal below. Kind Regards, Andy and Masato ---------------------------------------------------------------------- prop-111-v003 Request-based expansion of IPv6 default allocation size ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Author: Tomohiro Fujisaki fujisaki(a)syce.net 1. Problem statement -------------------- IPv6 minimum allocation size to LIRs is defined as /32 in the "IPv6 address allocation and assignment policy"[1]. It's better to expand this minimum allocation size up to /29 (/32 - /29) since: - Before sparse allocation mechanism implemented in late 2006, /29 was reserved for all /32 allocations by sequential allocation method made from those old /23 blocks. These reserved blocks might be kept unused in the future. - Sparse allocation mechanism was implemented in late 2006 with a /12 allocation from the IANA. Under the sparse allocation mechanism, there is no reservation size defined, and the space between allocations continues to change, depending on the remaining free pool available in APNIC. However, the "APNIC guidelines for IPv6 allocation and assignment requests"[2] stated: "In accordance with APNIC's "IPv6 address allocation and assignment policy", where possible, subsequent delegations to the same resource holder are made from an adjacent address block by growing the delegation into the free space remaining, unless disaggregated ranges are requested for multiple discrete networks." So, it is expected that allocation up to /29 is guaranteed for consistency with allocations above. Based on the current situation, contiguous allocation of /29 can still be accommodated even under the sparse allocation mechanism (Current /32 allocations from the /12 block can grow up to /24 at this stage). - After amended HD Ratio (0.94) and base calculation size (/56) was introduced (prop-031 and prop-033), to obtain address blocks larger than /32 and to request additional address blocks became harder especially for small and middle size ISPs. - For traffic control purpose, some LIRs announce address blocks longer than /32 (e.g. /35). However, some ISPs may set filters to block address size longer than /32 since some filtering guidelines recommend to filter longer prefix than /32([3][4]). If LIRs have multiple /32, they can announce these blocks and its reachability will be better than longer prefix. - If an LIR needs address blocks larger than /32, LIRs may tend to announce as a single prefix if a /29 is allocated initially at once. i.e., total number of announced prefixes in case 1 may be smaller than in case 2. case 1: The LIR obtains /29 at the beginning of IPv6 network construction. case 2: The LIR obtains /32, and /31, /30 additionally with the subsequent allocation mechanism. 2. Objective of policy change ----------------------------- This proposal modifies the eligibility for an organization to receive or extend an IPv6 address space up to a /29 (/32 -/29) by explaining how the extended space up to /29 will be used. 3. Situation in other regions ----------------------------- RIPE-NCC: The policy "Extension of IPv6 /32 to /29 on a per-allocation vs per-LIR basis" is adopted in RIPE-NCC and LIRs in RIPE region can get up to /29 by default. 4. Proposed policy solution ---------------------------- - Change the text to "5.2.2 Minimum initial allocation size" of current policy document as below: Organizations that meet the initial allocation criteria are eligible to receive an initial allocation of /32. The organizations can receive up to /29 by providing utilization information of the whole address space. - Add following text in the policy document: for Existing IPv6 address space holders LIRs that hold one or more IPv6 allocations are able to request extension of each of these allocations up to a /29 without meeting the utilization rate for subsequent allocation by explaining how the whole address space will be used. 5. Explain the advantages of the proposal ----------------------------------------- - It is possible to utilize address blocks which is potentially unused into the future. - Organizations can design their IPv6 networks more flexibly. - It will be possible for LIRs to control traffic easier. 6. Explain the disadvantages of the proposal -------------------------------------------- Some people may argue this will lead to inefficient utilization of IPv6 space since LIRs can obtain huge address size unnecessarily. However, this will not happen because larger address size needs higher cost to maintain that address block. 7. Impact on resource holders ----------------------------- NIRs must implement this policy if it is implemented by APNIC. 8. References (if required) --------------------------- [1] IPv6 address allocation and assignment policy http://www.apnic.net/policy/ipv6-address-policy [2] APNIC guidelines for IPv6 allocation and assignment requests https://www.apnic.net/publications/media-library/documents/resource-guidelin es/ipv6-guidelines [3] Packet Filter and Route Filter Recommendation for IPv6 at xSP routers https://www.team-cymru.org/ReadingRoom/Templates/IPv6Routers/xsp-recommendat ions.html [4] IPv6 BGP filter recommendations http://www.space.net/~gert/RIPE/ipv6-filters.html

4 4

Monthly List Reminder
by noreply＠apnic.net 31 Aug '14

31 Aug '14

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 Co-Chair Nominations
by Adam Gosling 08 Aug '14

08 Aug '14

APNIC is seeking volunteers to serve as APNIC Policy SIG Co-Chair. The term of APNIC Policy SIG Co-Chair, Masato Yamanishi, will end at the APNIC 38 Open Policy Meeting in Brisbane, Australia. An election for this position will be held as the first Agenda item of the Policy SIG Meeting on Thursday, 19 September 2014. The deadline for nominations is 24:00 (UTC +10) on Monday, 8 September 2014. Nominees must confirm they are willing and able to commit to the responsibilities associated with the Co-Chair position. Details of these responsibilities are outlined in Section 2.5 of the APNIC SIG Guidelines. http://www.apnic.net/community/sigs/sig-guidelines#co-responsibilities Nominations and self-nominations may be submitted using the nomination form. Nominees are required to provide a nominee statement and indicate they are willing and able to perform the requirements of the role. More information on the election and the APNIC 38 Open Policy Meeting (OPM) is available here: http://conference.apnic.net/38/policy Nominations and self-nominations may be submitted using the form available here: http://conference.apnic.net/38/policy/nominate All SIG Chairs undertake this work on a voluntary basis. The APNIC Secretariat speaks on behalf of the community in saying we are very appreciative of the work done by Chairs and Co-Chairs. Regards Adam -- Adam Gosling Internet Policy Development Consultant email: adam(a)apnic.net APNIC sip: adam(a)voip.apnic.net http://www.apnic.net phone: +617 3858 3100 ________________________________________________________________________ * Sent by email to save paper. Print only if necessary.

1 0

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

sig-policy August 2014