Re: [sig-policy] prop-048: IPv6 ULA-central
As agreed with the chairs, I will like to make a couple of clarifications
about this policy. Hopefully this also helps to get the discussion started
:-)
Before considering submitting this policy proposal (in all the regions, but
not intended as a global policy at the time being), I've been working on
this topic for several months with the NRO. They finally agreed in their
February meeting to suggest me to submit a policy proposal to each region.
I'm also working with IANA in clarifying some of the possible issues, for
example:
1) IANA already got allocated the complete block with ULA (RFC4193).
2) IANA and the RIRs already got allocated all the IPv6 space with RFC1881.
The chairs also asked me about the assignment size, and it is already
defined as /48. May be it comes from the RFC4193, as ULA-central is
referring to that document for many details.
Last, but not least, there is nothing in the PDP that precludes to go after
IETF, an even because RFC1881, we could actually ignore ULA-central draft
and base the policy proposal text in our own view on that. Actually this is
not the situation, I'm working with the original authors of ULA-central and
it is expected to have a resubmitted version of the draft very soon.
But what it is clear to me is that it is possible to work in parallel
(PDP+IETF) and I really will like to do that. This could actually help in
the progress of the ID.
Regards,
Jordi
> De: Toshiyuki Hosaka <hosaka at nic dot ad dot jp>
> Organización: Japan Network Information Center (JPNIC)
> Responder a: <sig-policy-bounces at lists dot apnic dot net>
> Fecha: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 16:42:54 +0900
> Para: <sig-policy at apnic dot net>
> Asunto: [sig-policy] prop-048: IPv6 ULA-central
>
> Dear SIG members
>
> The proposal "IPv6 ULA-central" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.
> It will be presented at the Policy SIG at APNIC 24 in New Delhi, India, 29
> August - 7 September 2007. 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/policy/proposals/prop-048-v001.html
>
> Regards,
> Toshiyuki Hosaka
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> prop-048-v001: IPv6 ULA-central
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
>
>
> Author: Jordi Palet Martinez, Consulintel
> <jordi.palet at consulintel dot es>
>
> Version: 1
>
> Date: 14 April 2007
>
>
> Introduction
> ------------
>
> This policy is intended to allow the assignment of IPv6 blocks within
> the so-called "Centrally Assigned Unique Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses"
> (see http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ipv6-ula-central-01) to
> organizations or individuals requiring it. These addresses are globally
> unique and intended for local communications, usually within a site or
> set of them and are not expected to be routable on the global Internet.
> Prefix FC00::/7 is already reserved by IANA for ULA (bit 8 determines
> if locally or centrally assigned, so ULA or ULA-central).
>
>
> Summary of current problem
> --------------------------
>
> In some situations, especially large sites in organizations, which
> already may have Global Unicast IPv6 blocks, may require an additional
> block for their internal infrastructure.
>
> This additional block can be used for a number of purposes, such as
> VPNs, site-to-site communications, avoiding dual/multiple faced DNSs,
> support for applications which are sensitive to long convergence times
> (such as VoIP), etc.
>
>
> Situation in other RIRs
> -----------------------
>
> This policy proposal has already been submitted to the other regions.
> Some of them have not yet published it at the time of submission to
> APNIC.
>
>
> Proposal details
> ----------------
>
> Definition of ULA-central
>
> ULA-central refers to the Centrally Assigned Unique Local IPv6
> Unicast Addresses as described in the IETF document
> "ietf-ipv6-ula-central" (whatever version is the most recent, as an
> Internet Draft, RFC or STD). The ULA-central block is within the
> prefix FC00::/7, with bit 8 set to 0.
>
>
> Assignment of ULA-central blocks
>
> Any organization or individual requiring a /48 from the ULA-central
> block will be able to get it assigned, once the relevant contract is
> executed and related membership fees are paid (to be determined by
> the board).
>
> Note that in most of the cases, locally assigned ULA addresses (RFC
> 4193) are preferred, and it is only expected that large managed sites
> will prefer central assignments. It is also important to reinforce
> that the ULA prefix (FC00::/7) it is not routable in the global
> Internet (i.e., not designed to be used as IPv6 portable assignments)
> and consequently must be filtered.
>
> Advantages and disadvantages of adopting the proposed policy
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
> a. Advantages
>
> In some situations, especially large sites in organizations, which
> already may have Global Unicast IPv6 blocks, may require an
> additional block for their internal infrastructure.
>
> This additional block can be used for a number of purposes, such as
> VPNs, site-to-site communications, avoiding dual/multiple faced
> DNSs, support for applications which are sensitive to long
> convergence times (such as VoIP), etc.
>
> The "Micro-allocations for Internal Infrastructure" document from
> ARIN (policy proposal 2006-2, authored by Jason Schiller et al.,
> available at http://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2006_2.html),
> describes the need of this kind of additional block for purposes BGP
> Re-Convergence, Internal Infrastructure Security and why locally
> assigned ULAs (RFC 4193) addresses are not appropriate. Such policy
> proposal was accepted through the policy development process and it
> is already part of the ARIN Number Resource Policy Manual.
>
> The usage of Global Unicast IPv6 blocks for this type of purposes
> must be considered as wasteful, especially when there is already an
> IANA reserved prefix (FC00::/7) for doing so.
>
>
> b. Disadvantages
>
> None foreseen. However, it should be clear that the original scope
> of ULA-central is for large managed sites and all other cases should
> use locally assigned ULAs as per RFC 4193. From the same document,
> it is clearly documented the reasons why this prefix will not be
> useful as IPv6 portable assignments and will be filtered out in the
> global Internet.
>
>
> Effect on APNIC members
> -----------------------
>
> None expected.
>
>
> Effect on NIRs
> --------------
> They may need to adopt an equivalent proposal, or, as the number of
> assignations will be low, rely directly on the same system which may
> become implemented by APNIC.
>
>
> Acknowledgments
> ---------------
> I would like to acknowledge to the authors of the ULA-central work at
> IETF, Bob Hinden and Brian Haberman and all those who also contributed
> to that work.
>
> (end of text)
>
>
>
> * 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.