Scott,

Thank you for the reference - that's very helpful.

So it seems that APNIC is the now the only remaining RIR absolutely requiring multihoming for PI assignments. (As Jordi indicated, RIPE-545 "IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy" has been published this month which replaces RIPE-538 and removes their previous multihoming requirement.)

It is also interesting comparing the justifications required in the different regions. I have been assuming that if we removed the multihoming requirement we would want to ensure some level of justification is required for a portable assignment, and would expect to include this in a proposal, but I would appreciate any comments from the list on this (including what level of justification is required).

Regards, David

At 03:32 AM 25/01/2012, Scott Leibrand wrote:
David,

In the ARIN region, most of the discussion around Direct assignments
from ARIN to end-user organizations
( https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#six58) centered on what the
criteria for non-multihomed organizations should be.  Under the policy
we eventually adopted, you can either be multihomed, or have justified
a v4 assignment, or have a need for 2000 IPv6 addresses or 200 /64s,
or "a reasonable technical justification indicating why IPv6 addresses
from an ISP or other LIR are unsuitable" (examples of which are called
out).

Hope that helps,
Scott

On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 9:38 PM, David Woodgate <dwoodgate5@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Jordi, many thanks for this information.
>
> Does anyone on the list know if this issue has been raised in ARIN,
> LACNIC or AfriNIC (and if so, what have been the thoughts expressed)?
>
> Regards, David
>
> At 06:14 PM 20/01/2012, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
>>This has been done as well in RIPE, as we had the same situation for some
>>cases. At this stage is just pending of being implemented by RIPE NCC.
>>
>>Regards,
>>Jordi


>> >On Jan 18, 2012, at 1:41 PM, 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