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