j
k
j a
j l
Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve
facebook.com/eintellegonetworks ; linkedin.com/in/skeeve
twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com
Dear SIG members The proposal "prop-111-v001: Request-based expansion of IPv6 default allocation size" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review. It will be presented at the Policy SIG at APNIC 37 in Petaling Jaya, Malaysia, on Thursday, 27 February 2014. We invite you to review and comment on the proposal on the mailing list before the meeting. The comment period on the mailing list before an APNIC meeting is an important part of the policy development process. We encourage you to express your views on the proposal: - Do you support or oppose this proposal? - Does this proposal solve a problem you are experiencing? If so, tell the community about your situation. - Do you see any disadvantages in this proposal? - Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear? - What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more effective? Information about this policy proposals is available from: http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/111 Andy, Masato ---------------------------------------------------------------------- prop-111-v001: Request-based expansion of IPv6 default allocation size ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Author: Tomohiro Fujisaki fujisaki@syce.net 1. Problem statement -------------------- Currently, IPv6 minimum allocation size to LIRs is defined as /32 in the "IPv6 address allocation and assignment policy", while APNIC currently reserves up to /29 for each /32 allocation. It's better to expand this minimum allocation size up to /29 since: - For traffic control purpose, some LIRs announce address blocks longer than /32 (e.g. /35). However, some ISPs set filters to block address size longer than /32. If LIRs have multiple /32, they can announce these blocks and its reachability will be better than longer prefix. - If an LIR needs address blocks larger than /32, LIRs may tend to announce as a single prefix if a /29 is allocated initially at once. i.e., total number of announced prefixes in case 1 may be smaller than in case 2. case 1: The LIR obtains /29 at the beginning of IPv6 network construction. case 2: The LIR obtains /32, and /31, /30 additionally with the subsequent allocation mechanism. - Before sparse allocation mechanism implemented in late 2008, /29 was reserved for all /32 holders by sequence allocation mechanism in the early years. It is possible to use these reserved blocks efficiently with this modification. 2. Objective of policy change ----------------------------- This proposal modifies the eligibility for an organization to receive an initial IPv6 allocation up to a /29 by request basis. 3. Situation in other regions ----------------------------- RIPE-NCC: The policy "Extension of IPv6 /32 to /29 on a per-allocation vs per-LIR basis" is adopted in RIPE-NCC and LIRs in RIPE region can get up to /29 by default. 4. Proposed policy solution ---------------------------- - Change the text to "5.2.2 Minimum initial allocation size" of current policy document as below: Organizations that meet the initial allocation criteria are eligible to receive an initial allocation of /32. For allocations up to /29 no additional documentation is necessary. - Add following text in the policy document: for Existing IPv6 address space holders LIRs that hold one or more IPv6 allocations are able to request extension of each of these allocations up to a /29 without meeting the utilization rate for subsequent allocation and providing further documentation. 5. Explain the advantages of the proposal ----------------------------------------- - It will be possible for LIRs to control traffic easier. - It is possible to use current reserved blocks efficiently. 6. Explain the disadvantages of the proposal -------------------------------------------- Some people may argue this will lead to inefficient utilization of IPv6 space. However, the space up to /29 is reserved by APNIC secretariat for each /32 allocation. 7. Impact on resource holders ----------------------------- NIRs must implement this policy if it is implemented by APNIC. * 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
Back to the thread
Back to the list