[sig-policy] A second policy proposal for the Policy SIG

  • To: <sig-policy at apnic dot net>
  • Subject: [sig-policy] A second policy proposal for the Policy SIG
  • From: "Kenny Huang" <huangk at alum dot sinica dot edu>
  • Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2006 14:49:50 +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: AcaF/OxWQlDwoQCpRWaBoOKPLUJhAgAE7bqQ
    • 
      Dear SIG members
      
      The proposal "IPv6 portable assignment for multihoming" 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. You are invited to review and
      comment on the proposal on the mailing list before the meeting.
      
      The proposal's history can be found at:
      
            http://www.apnic.net/docs/policy/proposals/prop-035-v001.html
      
      Please feel free to submit your own policy proposal for discussion at APNIC
      22.
      
      Regards
      
      Kenny Huang
      Policy SIG
      huangk at alum dot sinica dot edu
      
      
      ________________________________________________________________________
      
      prop-035-v001:   IPv6 portable assignment for multihoming
      ________________________________________________________________________
      
      
      Authors:     Katsuyasu Toyama
                    Takashi Arano
                    Tomohiro Fujisaki
                    Toshinori Ishii
                    Kosuke Ito
                    Dai Nishino,
                    Noriaktsu Ohishi
                    Izumi Okutani
      
      Version:    1
      
      Date:       2 June 2006
      
      SIG:        Policy
      
      
      
      Introduction
      ------------
      
      This policy allows 'end-sites' to be assigned IPv6 portable addresses only
      if the end-sites are multihomed, or plan to be multihomed.
      
      
      
      Summary
      -------
      The current policy does not allow IPv6 portable assignment to any
      end-sites. This obstructs end-site organizations which need redundancy
      in internet connectivity for stable network operation.
      
      Shim6, another multihoming technology discussed in IETF, is not a
      perfect replacement of the current multihoming technology using BGP due
      to traffic engineering. In addition, it will take time to standardize
      and implement Shim6.
      
      
      
      Situation
      --------
      
      ARIN has been discussing the IPv6 Provider-independent address. The
      draft was proposed in 2005 and moved to the last call after the meeting
      consensus in April 2006.
      
      RIPE started PI discussion at RIPE in this May.
      
      AFRINIC and LACNIC discussed similar proposals recently in their Open
      Policy meetings. In those regions, the issue has been returned to their
      public mailing lists for further discussion.
      
      Note: APNIC uses the term "portable" rather than "provider-independent"
             (PI).
      
      
      
      Details
      -------
      
      (1) Assignment target:
      
           End-sites which are multihomed or plan to be multihomed, regardless
           of their size.
      
      
      (2) Assignment criteria:
      
           (2-a) The end site which is assigned IPv6 portable address space
                 must be multihomed using the assigned portable address space
                 in three (3) months.
      
           (2-b) If the portable address space is not used for multihoming
                 after three (3) months, the address space must be reclaimed.
      
           (2-c) The end site which is assigned IPv6 portable address space
                 must pay the fee for the space.
      
      
      (3) Portable address space:
      
           (3-a) The portable assignment should be made from a specified block
                 separate from address space used for portable allocations
      
           (3-b) The portable assignment size to an end-site should be the same
                 size as in non-portable assignments, currently /48,
                 or a shorter prefix if the end-site can justify it.
      
      
      
      Pros/Cons
      ---------
      
      Advantages:
      
           (1) Provides the solution for end-sites which require redundancy in
               IPv6 and currently not able to do so due to the lack of
               technical solutions.
      
           (2) Assignment of the portable address space is limited only to
               'multihoming purposes'; only end-sites which are or planned to
               be multihomed can be assigned a portable address. This reduces
               the consumption of portable address space as well as the growth
               of the global routing table.
      
           (3) Portable assigned address space is separate from portable
               allocated address space, therefore:
      
               (3-1) It helps preventing 'punching holes' in the portable
                     allocated address space because prefixes which are longer
                     than /32 can be filtered in portable allocated space.
      
               (3-2) it is relatively easy to abandon the portable assigned
                     address space in case some better techinical solutions
                     are developed in the future.
      
      
      Disadvantages:
      
           It may lead to growth in the global routing table, but we think the
           growth is almost the same in case that providers and end-sites start
           using 'punching holes' for multihoming.
      
      
      
      Effect on APNIC
      ---------------
      No direct effect on the existing APNIC members, nor changes to the
      current IPv6 allocation criteria.
      
      
      
      Effect on NIRs
      --------------
      NIR can adopt this policy at its discretion.