-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1

Dear SIG members

Below is an updated version of the proposal that includes elements changed during the APNIC 31 Policy SIG meeting.

The following changes were made:

- The specific examples in section 4.2 were removed from the text.

The proposal's history can be found at:

http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-083

This proposal reached consensus at the Policy SIG meeting during the Policy SIG at APNIC 31 in Hong Kong SAR, China, 21-25 February 2011.

It will be presented to the Policy SIG mailing list soon for a formal eight-week final call for comments.

Gaurab, Terence, and Andy

___________________________________________________________________

prop-083-v003: Alternative criteria for subsequent IPv6 allocations ___________________________________________________________________

Author: Skeeve Stevens skeeve@eintellego.net

Version: 3

Date: 24 February 2011

1. Introduction - ----------------

This is a proposal to enable current APNIC account holders with existing IPv6 allocations to receive subsequent IPv6 allocations from APNIC to facilitate network deployments.

Examples: - For use in networks that are not connected to the initial IPv6 allocation

- Transitional technologies such as 6RD

- Other reasons accepted by APNIC as valid circumstance, or as decided by the community in policy amendments.

2. Summary of current problem - ------------------------------

An APNIC account holder with an existing /32 IPv6 allocation (or larger) is unable to deaggregate that allocation into routes smaller than a /32 due to the community practice of 'filter blocking' or 'bogon lists' associated with RIR blocks which are known to have a minimum allocation size of /32 [1].

As an example, a LIR may want to build a network in a separate location and provide IPv6 connectivity; however, because the LIR risks routability problems if they deaggregate, they cannot use a subset of their initial allocation in the new location.

For example:

An ISP has a /32 allocation which they announce via an upstream in Australia.Ê The ISP wants to build a new network in Cambodia. The ISP's new network in Cambodia is not connected to the existing Australian network and the ISP is using a local transit provider to obtain dual stacked connectivity.

If the network was using IPv4 addresses, the ISP would usually be able to deaggregate their allocation and announce one part of the deaggregated range to the local transit provider.

In IPv6, however, this is not possible due to 'community filtering' on ranges smaller than a /32.

Such a filter may look like the following:

ipv6 prefix-list ipv6-ebgp-strict permit 2400::/12 ge 19 le 32

This above statement in the IPv6 BGP filter recommendations would cause any announcements by an ISP which had an allocation, such as 2400:0000::/32, to announce smaller routes from that block, such as multiple /35s for example, to be filtered.Ê In a default free situation, connectivity to the ISP would be problematic.

Instead, the ISP needs to obtain a new /32 allocation to be able to have IPv6 connectivity in the new location with an independent (from their primary network) transit provider.

Other valid examples of subsequent allocation may be to facilitate transitional technologies such as 6RD.

3. Situation in other RIRs - ---------------------------

AfriNIC and LACNIC currently have no similar policies or proposals.

ARIN: A similar policy, 2009-5 has been adopted [3] and integrated into the ARIN Number Resource Policy Manual

RIPE: A similar policy, 2009-5 [4] was rejected in favor of 2009-6 [5]

RIPE's 2009-6 recommended that routing announcements requirements be relaxed so that LIRÕs can announce smaller (i.e. if they have a /32, they can announce a /35) prefixes. APNIC Policy 082 at this meeting (APNIC 29) is basically the same, but does not address this issue covered by this policy proposal.

4. Details of the proposal - ---------------------------

4.1 It is proposed that alternative criteria be added to the subsequent IPv6 allocation policy [2] to allow current APNIC account holders to obtain additional IPv6 resources.

4.2 To qualify for subsequent IPv6 allocations under the proposed alternative criteria, account holders must:

- Be a current APNIC account holder with an existing IPv6 allocation

- Be announcing its existing IPv6 allocation

- Have a compelling reason for requiring the subsequent allocation

4.3 As part of this process, if the LIR should indicate whether it will be using an existing ASN for the additional announcement which cannot be the same as the ASN of the initial assignment.

5. Advantages and disadvantages of the proposal - ------------------------------------------------

5.1 Advantages

- This proposal enables current APNIC account holders to avoid problematic network design issues and policy issues related to deaggregation.

- Current APNIC account holders will be able to acquire resources and announce them separately to transit providers in disparate locations.

5.2 Disadvantages

- This proposal could cause faster consumption of IPv6 address space. However, given the size of the total IPv6 pool, the author of this proposal does not see this as a significant issue.

6. Effect on APNIC members - ---------------------------

APNIC members would be able to build networks in separate locations and obtain local IPv6 connectivity and announce their own resources.

7. Effect on NIRs - ------------------

The proposal allows for NIRs to have the choice as to when to adopt this policy for their members.

8. References - ---------------

[1] For example, see "IPv6 BGP filter recommendations" http://www.space.net/~gert/RIPE/ipv6-filters.html

[2] See section 5.2, "Subsequent Allocation Section" in "IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy" http://www.apnic.net/policy/ipv6-address-policy#5.2

[3] https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2009_5.html

[4] http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2009-05.html

[5] http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2009-06.html