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.
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
- 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.
- 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