David: How about routing table size? ISP's would have no way to aggregate.

yi ________________________________________ From: sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net [sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net] on behalf of David Woodgate [dwoodgate5@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2012 6:41 PM To: sig-policy@apnic.net Subject: [sig-policy] Is the multihoming requirement necessary for IPv6 portable assignments?

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: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy

________________________________

This e-mail may contain Sprint Nextel proprietary information intended for the sole use of the recipient(s). Any use by others is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies of the message.