Re: [sig-policy] prop-036-v001: Proposal to allow end sites toreceive IP
I discovered a small mistake in this submission.
The original title I used was "IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment
Policy". In the editing process before being approved by the chairs this has
been changed and I've not noticed it; my fault in that sense.
However, I want to make clear that the original intend of the proposal is to
modify the existing IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy, not only
because the end-sites, but especially because the overall existing
restrictions such as the 200 sites in two years and other details such as
the "interim" character of the existing policy, etc.
I hope that helps to clarify the wrong title and hopefully can be changed in
the process.
Regards,
Jordi
> De: Kenny Huang <huangk at alum dot sinica dot edu>
> Responder a: <sig-policy-bounces at lists dot apnic dot net>
> Fecha: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 15:19:52 +0800
> Para: <sig-policy at apnic dot net>
> Asunto: [sig-policy] prop-036-v001: Proposal to allow end sites toreceive IPv6
> allocations
>
>
>
> 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.
>
> * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy
> *
> _______________________________________________
> sig-policy mailing list
> sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net
> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
**********************************************
The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org
Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 !
http://www.ipv6day.org
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.