Terence, Jane and Wendy,

I read the policy with substantial interest, I have some comments on the policy, and the wording of the policy.

1) While you elude to to the possibility of a longer prefix in both the appendix and disadvantages, I think it is highly likely that a change in routing practice will occur (unfortunately) and longer prefixes will find their way into the DFZ. I urge a consideration to limit the prefix length of that block to a /27 or /28.

2) Specifying that this block is taken from the final /8 is perhaps restrictive. I suggest leaving it to the secretariat to decide which block this /10 is taken from.

3) If a transfers policy is adopted, I would suggest that if a member (or nir member) transfers v4 address space to another organisation and holds a 'ipv6 deployment' allocation from this policy, that the 'ipv6 deployment' allocation is automatically recovered by APNIC. (eg the member has just proven their ability to renumber)

4) I like the concept in the RIPE proposal about actually demonstrating a v6 _service_ to be eligible. As distinct from need.

5) Should the automatic v6 allocation proposal be adopted, the second point in section 4 might become superfluous. (yes - adoption of that policy is not a given)

6) I question your assurance that no organisation will lack ipv4 for ipv6 deployment given an organisation may have several of these allocations. But that might just be a cynical view.

7) I am hedging to say that an allocation of this sort should be time based. How much time? hard to say given that v6 deployment should have been done by now. But holding a 'transition' allocation indefinitely dilutes an incentive to actually transition.

8) why do you have the restriction on eligibility if the member has received an allocation in the last 12 months? wouldn't your following rule about 80% utilisation cover it?

9) I don't think I read anywhere in this proposal that sparse allocation methods must be used. Regardless of the prefix length I think we would want to give members every opportunity to aggregate if multiple allocations are issued to a member.

10) What are your feelings on a member sub-allocating this range to their customers? allow? disallow? conditional?

Otherwise, in essence, generally I'm in support of the idea.

Cheers Terry

On 29/07/2009, at 5:12 PM, Randy Bush wrote:

Information about this and other policy proposals is available from:

      http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals

Randy, Jian and Ching-Heng

prop-078-v001: Reserving /10 IPv4 address space to facilitate IPv6 deployment ________________________________________________________________________

Authors: Terence Zhang Yinghao zhangyinghao@cnnic.cn

       Jane Zhang
       <zhangjian@cnnic.cn>

       Wendy Zhao Wei
       <zhaowei@cnnic.cn>

Version: 1

Date: 29 July 2009

1. Introduction

This proposal seeks to ensure some small blocks of IPv4 space will remain available to LIRs for a long time to ease the co-existence of IPv4 and IPv6 and to facilitate IPv6 deployment.

It is proposed that when APNIC receives its last /8 IPv4 allocation from IANA, a contiguous /10 IPv4 block will be set aside and dedicated to facilitate IPv6 deployment.

1. Summary of the current problem

The IPv4 address pool is expected to be depleted in the near future, but the Internet will still use IPv4 for many years during the adoption of IPv6, during this period, LIRs will need to connect to the IPv4 Internet while they deploy services using the IPv6 Internet.

APNIC's current "final /8" policy [1] prevents any one organization consuming too many IPv4 address from the final /8, which ensure new LIRs can participate in the IPv4 Internet. However, the final /8 policy does not require LIRs to deploy IPv6. Therefore, it is possible that LIRs use those allocated address entirely for IPv4 services. Later, when they intend to deploy IPv6, they will have no chance to get another IPv4 allocation from APNIC under the "final /8" policy, even if there are a certain amount of unallocated IPv4 addresses remaining in APNIC's pool. Instead, the LIR would have to re-organize their IPv4 network to set aside some addresses. This would impact their progress in IPv6 deployment.

To remedy this problem, this policy proposal seeks to encourage LIRs to deploy IPv6 and ensure IPv4 space will remain available for LIRs' IPv6 deployment.

1. Situation in other RIRs

ARIN has adopted a similar policy:

2008-5: Dedicated IPv4 block to facilitate IPv6 Deployment
https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2008_5.html

RIPE has similar policy proposal under discussion:

2009-04: IPv4 Allocation and Assignments to Facilitate IPv6
Deployment
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2009-04.html

AfriNIC and LACNIC currently have no similar policies or proposals.

1. Details

It is proposed that when APNIC receives its last /8 IPv4 allocation from IANA, a contiguous /10 IPv4 block from the /8 will be set aside and dedicated to facilitate IPv6 deployment.

Allocations and assignments from this dedicated /10 block must be justified by immediate IPv6 deployment needs; examples of such needs include: IPv4 addresses for key dual stack devices, NAT-PT or NAT464 translators, etc.

The size of each allocation from this /10 block is /24, or APNIC's minimum allocation size in force at time of the allocation, which ever is smaller.

Each LIR may apply for and receive the specified allocation size regardless of LIR size or intended membership tier.

In order to receive a first allocation or assignment under this policy:

1. The applicant must demonstrate immediate IPv6 deployment needs,
   especially for IPv6 to IPv4 internetworking.

2. The applicant must either have existing IPv6 addresses or valid
   application for IPv6 addresses.

3. The applicant must be a current APNIC account holder or a  

member of an NIR.

In order to receive subsequent allocation or assignment under this policy:

1. The applicant must demonstrate immediate IPv6 deployment needs,
   especially for IPv6 to IPv4 internetworking.

2. The applicant may not have received resources under this policy
   in the preceding 12 months.

3. Previous allocations/assignments under this policy must be
   strictly used to facilitate IPv6 deployment, and the  

utilization rate is higher than 75%;

4. The utilization rate of previous allocations/assignments of  

other IPv4 addresses allocated from APNIC must reach 80%, or APNIC's current IPv4 allocation policy required utilization rate at the time of the allocation.

5. The applicant must be a current APNIC account holder or a  

member of an NIR.

Allocations under this policy do not affect an LIR's eligibility to apply for IPv4 addresses under the "final /8' policy", and vice versa.

1. Pros/Cons

5.1 Advantages:

- This proposal will encourage IPv6 deployment as it ensures LIRs
  can receive dedicated IPv4 address space from the APNIC if they
  have an immediate need to deploy IPv6.

- The dedicated /10 block provides 16,384 allocations, which  

ensures that no organization lacks IPv4 address space for IPv6 deployment for many years.

5.2 Disadvantages:

- There is a remote possibility that, after setting aside one /10
  under this proposal, the remainder of the last /8 may be used
  up. If that were to happen, LIR would need to have immediate  

IPv6 deployment needs to qualify for IPv4 addresses from APNIC.

  However, with 12,288 possible allocations from the current  

minimum allocation (at time of writing), and considering that the projection of APNIC members in 2013 is 4000, it is not likely the 12,288 allocations will be used up. In addition, if it does happen, applying for IPv4 address without any intent to deploy IPv6 is not practical.

  Also, the size of allocation under this policy (/24) can be
  reduced to suit future needs, if necessary.

1. Effect on APNIC members

This proposal allows APNIC LIRs (existing and new) to receive dedicated IPv4 address space from APNIC to facilitate IPv6 deployment.

1. Effect on NIRs

This proposal has no direct impact to NIRs. NIR members (existing and new) can receive dedicated IPv4 address space from APNIC to facilitate IPv6 deployment.

1. References

[1] See section 9.10, "Policies for IPv4 address space management in the Asia Pacific region" http://www.apnic.net/policy/add-manage-policy.html#9.10

1. Appendix A

Reason for reserving a contiguous /10

The IPv6 Internet may take a long time to develop, and since IPv4
and IPv6 may co-exist for many years, the demand for IPv6 to IPv4
internetworking will be sustained for many years.

The intention of the proposal is to stimulate native IPv6  

deployment as much as possible, while supporting the need for IPv6 networks to communicate with the IPv4 world.

The current policy for allocations from the "final /8" will  

provide 16384 allocations. Setting aside a /10 from that /8 will reduce the allocations to 12288. Since currently APNIC has about 2000 members and is projected to have 4000 members in 2013, it is feasible to set aside a /10 to encourage and ensure IPv6 deployment.

The dedicated /10 block itself can provide 16384 allocations with
the /24 maximum allocation size. This, in addition to the
requirements of a 12-month interval between allocations from this
block and a 75% utilization rate for previous allocations from  

this /10 before additional allocations from this block can be made, would prevent hoarding and ensure this pool will last many years.

Reason for /24 allocation size

Allocations under this policy are mainly for IPv6 to IPv4
internetworking purpose, such as IPv4 addresses for key dual stack
devices, NAT-PT or NAT464 translators, etc. Therefore, we need  

only a few addresses to do the job. In most cases we can foresee, a / 24, or even a /27, can perfectly satisfy the deployment needs for one organization.

The reason we choose /24 is we do not want to create longer  

prefixes in the Internet routing table just because of this policy. Based on knowledge of current Internet's route filtering culture, we believe /24 is the most generally accepted longest prefix currently.

Of course, it is possible routing practices will change when we  

are running out of IPv4. Therefore, in the future, if longer route prefixes are more generally accepted, or a smaller minimum allocation size takes effect, we can certainly reduce the size of allocation under this policy to suit future needs, and ensure more allocations from this block are possible.

Finally, a relatively larger allocation size will minimize the
possibility of an organization getting multiple non-contiguous  

small blocks in multiple allocations.

•          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