Hi David,
I proposed IPv6 portable assignment, got consensus here, and it was
implemented a few years ago. At that time there were no IPv6 portable
assignment for enterprises or small companies who needed multihoming
just like in IPv4.
The biggest concern of this community was explosion of routing table.
But people agreed the needs for multihoming, and allowed portable
assignment only for it. Renumbering issue and independence from ISPs
were also discussed, but they were not justified for portable assignment.
If routing table explosion is now solved technically or becomes
negligible, the multihoming requirement may be removed.
I also would like to hear voices of this community here, as I think the
concern still exists.
Thanks,
Katsuyasu
---
Katsuyasu Toyama
JPNAP by INTERNET MULTIFEED CO.
(2012/01/19 9:41), David Woodgate wrote:
I would like to canvass the opinion of this list as to whether the
current multihoming requirement for portable IPv6 assignments is
truly necessary, or whether it could be removed from APNIC's IPv6
allocation policy.
That is, should IPv6 portable addresses be made available to anyone
upon request (with appropriate justifications and fees), without the
requirement to be multihomed?
At the moment, the only option for IPv6 addressing of a singly-homed
network is assignment from their ISP (as an LIR). This of course
should be fine for dynamically-assigned networks, or networks small
enough to renumber, but it will pose significant challenges for large
to very large statically-configured networks if they wish to change
ISP, since that implies by current practice and paradigms that the
customer will need to renumber their entire network to a new address
space assigned by the new ISP.
This issue can easily be removed, simply by making portable addresses
readily available to any company, and the only apparent policy change
required would be to remove the current multihoming requirement (i.e.
changing section 5.9.1 of the current "IPv6 address allocation and
assignment policy"). I believe that APNIC's standard fees and other
assignment criteria would naturally stop requests from any companies
other than those who really needed this for genuine business purposes
anyway (since who is going to pay AU$4,175 or more for a /48 if they
don't have to?), so I don't believe such a change would risk an
explosion of the routing table or an excessive consumption of IPv6 resources.
There otherwise does not seem to be any obvious value in retaining
the multihoming requirement; so while it may be likely that many
networks of that scale would be multihomed anyway, it does not seem
necessary to demand it - therefore I suggest it should be removed as
an unnecessary limitation, as in some circumstances it could hinder
or add complexity to the aim of general IPv6 deployment.
I'm eager to hear any thoughts about this idea from the members of
this list, and I would be interested in working with someone to
co-author a policy proposal.
David Woodgate
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy