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