Can the APNIC Secretariat please indicate how many organisations have
been denied IPv6 address space under the existing IPv6 address
allocation policy?
That information might help any discussion surrounding this policy proposal.
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@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.
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
