[sig-policy] Draft of policy proposal from Jordi Palet

  • To: <sig-policy at apnic dot net>
  • Subject: [sig-policy] Draft of policy proposal from Jordi Palet
  • From: "Kenny Huang" <huangk at alum dot sinica dot edu>
  • Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 07:13:17 +0800
  • Cc:
  • List-archive: <http://www.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-policy>
  • List-help: <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=help>
  • List-id: APNIC SIG on resource management policy <sig-policy.lists.apnic.net>
  • List-post: <mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net>
  • List-subscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy>, <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=subscribe>
  • List-unsubscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy>, <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=unsubscribe>
  • Thread-index: AcaAjYEFxp/6ufExT0Gbd8W7okw4+ACHozPA
    • Dear SIG members
      The following proposal "IPv6 portable assignment for end user organisations"
      has been sent to the Policy SIG for review. It will be presented at the
      Policy SIG at APNIC 22 in Kaohsiung, Taiwan, 4-8 September 2006. Please feel
      free to review and comment on the proposal on the mailing list before the
      The proposal's history can be found at:
      Please feel free to submit your own policy proposal for discussion at APNIC
      Kenny Huang
      Policy SIG
      huangk at alum dot sinica dot edu
      prop-034-v001:   IPv6 portable assignment for end user organisations
      Author:     Jordi Palet Martinez, Consulintel
      Version:    1
      Date:       29 May 2006
      SIG:        Policy
      This policy allows end user organisations that multihome, plan to multihome
      or require a portable IPv6 assignment for other administrative/technical
      reasons, to actually receive it.
      Summary of current problem
      In IPv4 address space, end user organisations that currently multihome, plan
      to multihome or have a similar need for a portable block, can
      request a portable IPv4 assignment from APNIC if they meet the IPv4
      multihoming criteria. However, there is no equivalent policy for an end user
      organisation wishing to multihome using IPv6 addresses.
      Portable IPv6 assignments are already available to organisations that meet
      the IXP or critical infrastructure criteria.
      Situation in other RIRs
      All the RIRs are currently discussing a similar proposal.
      Details of your proposal
      Criteria for portable IPv6 assignments:
           To qualify for a portable assignment, the organisation:
               - must not be an IPv6 Local Internet Registry (LIR); and,
               - must qualify for an IPv4 portable assignment from APNIC
                 under current IPv4 policies. This applies whether or not
                 the organisation holds IPv4 portable assignment.
      Initial assignment size:
           The minimum size of the assignment is /32. However, a larger
           assignment can be provided if duly documented and justified.
      Subsequent assignment size:
           Whenever possible, further assignments will be made from adjacent
           address blocks, but only if duly documented and justified.
      Assignment 'super block':
           Assignments will be made from a separate 'super block' to allow LIRs
           to filter them, if required.
      Lifetime of policy:
           This policy is an interim solution until an alternative technical
           solution to multihoming in IPv6 can be developed by the community.
           After the technical community develops an alternative and deployable
           solution to multihoming in IPv6, this  portable IPv6 assignment
           policy for multihomed organisations would expire.
      Expiry of assignments:
           Because of the probable medium to long-term consequences of this
           policy on routing tables, any assignments made under this proposed
           policy should be reclaimed by APNIC three years after a viable
           alternative solution to multihoming in IPv6 is developed.
           End user organisations that wish to avoid renumbering out of the
           assigned IPv6 prefix would be able to opt to become an LIR, and,
           if they qualify, receive an allocation that includes the
           same prefix the organisation was originally assigned.
      Advantages and disadvantages of adopting the proposed policy
           In IPv4, there are organisations that qualify for a portable
           assignments, or that could opt to become an LIR. This may be because
           they need either to be multihomed or have other administrative or
           technical reasons for needing a portable address block.
           This is currently not the case for IPv6, and is perceived as a clear
           barrier for deployment of IPv6 in some organisations. This policy
           proposal addresses that barrier by means of providing a direct
           assignment from APNIC.
           Any organisation receiving such an assignment would not be allowed
           to make further assignments to other external organisations, but
           instead only to assign subnets internally within their own
           Assigning a /32 would make those blocks behave as other regular LIR
           allocated ones and follow generally accepted routing filtering
           practices. At the same time, the blocks would be identifiable as
           belonging to a special 'super block'. This would also allow
           organisations to become an LIR and avoid the need for renumbering.
           With this policy, we avoid the unfair situation among different
           regions, and meet the needs of any organisation that required
           portable address space. Organisations with a portable assignment
           will be in an equal position once the community agrees with a
           long-term technical solution and will have to either move to this
           new solution or become an LIR, if they qualify. Newcomers will also
           be in the same position. Some organisations will not opt for
           portable assignments under this policy because they do not need
           it. This would avoid placing them in an unfair situation.
           Those that do not believe in possible alternative solutions, but
           who prefer to go for a permanent portable assignment policy, have
           no valid reasons to oppose this proposal, as the 'sunset period'
           should only be in effect once a suitable solution had been agreed.
           This proposal should not interfere with their plans.
           Some organisations may qualify to become an LIR now, and avoid using
           this temporary assignment. However if their only reason to become an
           LIR is to get a portable assignment, then it may a better control
           for the routing table size in the long-term, if they use the option
           offered by this proposal. This would be fairer to the wider Internet
           The 'temporary' nature of this assignment must be considered
           long-term, as we may expect alternative solutions to be available
           in around three to four years. This takes no account of a
           transition period. Therefore, asking for a change after six or seven
           years should be acceptable to all.
           The possible effect of this proposal is the growth of global routing
           tables to levels that, together with the existing and forecast IPv4
           routing entries, could create significant issues for operators
           unless vendors can provide products that address such issues. Even
           if such technical solutions were found, the proposal could still
           have a major impact on the cost and/or depreciation period for
           infrastructure investments.
           For this reason, this proposal comes with a fixed 'sunset' period,
           dependant upon the date when an alternative technically viable
           solution is available and accepted by the Internet community.
           A temporary /32 assignment should not be seen as a waste of address
           space. It would bring with it the advantage of removing the needs
           for new special filters and avoiding renumbering to those that could
           become LIRs.
      Effect on APNIC members
      Effect on NIRs
      I would like to acknowledge input received for the first version of this
      proposal from Marcelo Bagnulo and Lea Roberts.