[sig-policy] prop-036-v001: Proposal to allow end sites toreceive IPv6 a

  • To: <sig-policy at apnic dot net>
  • Subject: [sig-policy] prop-036-v001: Proposal to allow end sites toreceive IPv6 allocations
  • From: "Kenny Huang" <huangk at alum dot sinica dot edu>
  • Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 15:19:52 +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: AcaU0wr8QMGPWqwOQ1WBqlKMITvkvQAL+qLw
    • 
      Dear SIG members
      
      The proposal "Proposal to allow end sites to receive IPv6 allocations"
      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-036-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-036-v001:   Proposal to allow end sites to receive IPv6 allocations
      ________________________________________________________________________
      
      
      Author:     Jordi Palet Martinez, Consulintel
      
      Version:    1
      
      Date:       21 June 2006
      
      SIG:        Policy
      
      
      
      Introduction
      ------------
      This policy modification is intended to provide a solution for the lengthy
      discussions that have taken place in the different regions regarding
      existing IPv6 policies. It also takes account of the changes that have
      already taken place in other Regional Internet Registry
      (RIR) service regions.
      
      It is an alternative solution to the existing proposals around IPv6 portable
      assignments.
      
      
      
      Summary of the current problem
      ------------------------------
      It is clear that there are small Internet Service Providers (ISPs) that do
      not currently have  200 customers, consequently is not feasible for them to
      make "at least 200 /48" assignments in two years. It is, however, unfair
      that these ISPs have no access to IPv6 address space.
      
      Often, some organisations need to make internal assignments. Their networks
      may be made up of a number of sites that each has their own L2
      infrastructure. In some cases, organisations may have a small number of
      sites, but still need their own block so that they can avoid future
      renumbering, if they change their upstream provider or identify a need to
      become multihomed.
      
      One example might be a large university that has several campuses and
      faculties, each requiring IPv6 addresses. It may have one or several
      upstream providers. The university will most likely need to be able to
      assign IPv6 addresses from the same block to its sites and, at the same
      time, be able to use one or several upstreams. The university network
      behaves like an internal university ISP to each of the end sites.
      
      
      
      Situation in other RIRs
      -----------------------
      This proposal has also been submitted to RIPE NCC, LACNIC and AfriNIC
      regions.
      
      Some of the RIRs don't have already the 200 /48 restriction and have some
      text that freely allows the hostmaster to consider any submission
      ("reasonable number").
      
      
      
      Details
      -------
      The following policy changes are proposed for APNIC-089, "IPv6 Address
      Allocation and Assignment Policy":
      
      
      1.  Definition of "end site"
      
           The definition of "end site" in section 2.9 should be broadened to
           include a wider range of end users. This definition should be
           expanded to include end users that have a legal relationship with
           the service provider. Such legal relationships would allow end
           users that are part of the service provider or legally associated
           with the provider to be considered "end sites". For example, the
           different faculties or campuses of a university could be
           considered to be "end sites" under this proposed new definition.
      
      
      2.  Initial allocation criteria
      
           The following changes are proposed in section 5.1.1 of APNIC-089:
      
           a) Allow end sites to apply for an allocation
      
           b) Expand the criteria of the types of sites an organisation can
              provide IPv6 connectivity to include:
      
              - sites within its own organisations
              - sites at related organisations
      
           c) Remove the need to have a plan to make 200 /48 assignments in
              two years and replace it with a plan to make a reasonable
              number of /48 assignments in two years.
      
      
      3.  Policy document's status as "interim"
      
           Section 1.1 of APNIC-089 states that the policy document is
           "interim". It is proposed that this statement be removed.
      
      
      4.  Requirement to document need for multiple /48s assigned to a
           single end site.
      
           It is proposed that section 5.4.2 of APNIC-089, which requires that
           an end site  document its need for more than a single /48, be
           removed. It is necessary to remove this to allow an end site to
           qualify for an initial allocation as proposed in point 2a above.
      
           Removal of this requirement also reduces the workload of APNIC
           staff. It seems unnecessary for the staff to evaluate whether
           an end site needs more than one /48. Instead it should be up to the
           LIR to decide what to assign to end users. An LIR should realize
           that such decisions will impact its own prefix utilization and that
           the LIR will need to justify its decisions when coming back for a
           new allocation.
      
      
      
      Pros/Cons
      ---------
      
      Advantages:
      
           There have been already clear examples and discussions in different
           regions about the need for this modification.
      
           The difficulty encountered in receiving IPv6 address space by some
           big entities that have a need to use IPv6 is a clear barrier for
           its deployment.
      
           By setting up this policy, we would avoid creating an unfair
           situation among different RIR service regions. Other RIRs have
           already modified the original IPv6 common policy to avoid these
           barriers.
      
           We could possibly say that an arbitrary number of sites in order to
           qualify for an allocation could be considered illegal in some
           countries. The APNIC community cannot set policies that could prove
           unlawful as this could have important implications.
      
      
      Disadvantages:
      
           One possible effect of this proposal would be a growth of global
           routing tables. This is only to be expected when new allocations
           are made possible under this proposal.
      
           Opposing arguments should avoid being unfair to smaller ISPs that
           could not justify a fixed number of assignments. Such a policy
           could be seen as irrational and might be comparable with imposing
           a similar requirement for IPv4 address space allocations, which
           the community would be unlikely to accept.
      
      
      
      Effect on APNIC
      ---------------
      There may be a small increase in the number of IPv6 allocation requests from
      LIRs that do not have a plan for 200 customers.
      
      
      
      Effect on NIRs
      --------------
      NIRs may need to adapt their own similar policy. Otherwise, small ISPs may
      become APNIC LIRs to access an IPv6 prefix.
      
      
      
      Acknowledgments
      ---------------
      
      I would like to acknowledge all those who have contributed during many
      years, to the discussion of the modifications to the existing policy
      suggested by this proposal.