I don't object to allow a few exceptional /48 portable
assignments,
and I don't insist on the '2-year-expiration',
but I suggest either define the 'reasonable justification'
criterias explicitly & clearly
or put in some safeguarding limit.
Regards
Terence
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2012 11:14 AM
Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-101 Returned
to mailing list and Newversionposted
I too support this version of the proposal
On
Thursday, March 8, 2012, Randy Whitney <randy.whitney@verizon.com>
wrote:
> I support this version of the proposal, which removes the
controversial
> 4.E.e Sunset Clause from the text, while leaving the
4.E.d Reporting
> requirement.
>
> Best Regards,
>
Randy.
>
> On 3/6/2012 8:20 PM, Masato Yamanishi
wrote:
>> 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 >
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
>>
--
Regards,
Dean
*
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