[sig-policy] [Sig-policy] prop-073: Automatic allocation/assignment of I
The proposal, 'Automatic allocation/assignment of IPv6', has been sent
to the Policy SIG for review. It will be presented at the Policy SIG at
APNIC 28 in Beijing, China, 25-28 August 2009. The proposal's history
can be found at:
http://www.apnic.net/policy/prop-073
We invite you to review and comment on the proposal on the mailing list
before the meeting.
The comment period on the mailing list before an APNIC meeting is an
important part of the policy development process. We encourage you to
express your views on the proposal:
- Do you support or oppose this proposal?
- Does this proposal solve a problem you are experiencing? If
so, tell the community about your situation.
- Do you see any disadvantages in this proposal?
- Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear?
- What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more
effective?
Randy, Jian and Ching-Heng
________________________________________________________________________
prop-073-v001: Automatic allocation/assignment of IPv6
________________________________________________________________________
Authors: Terry Manderson
<terry at terrym dot net>
Andy Linton
<asjl at lpnz dot org>
Version: 1
Date: 6 July 2009
1. Introduction
----------------
This proposal directs the APNIC Secretariat to automatically assess and
provide IPv6 resources to APNIC members that currently hold IPv4
resources in the APNIC registry but who do not hold IPv6 resources in
the APNIC registry. The amount of IPv6 address space would be based on
those current APNIC managed IPv4 holdings so that there would be no
increase in their fees in accordance with the new APNIC fee schedule.
2. Summary of current problem
------------------------------
It is well understood that the final allocations of IPv4 address space
are drawing very close.
It is also well understood that the uptake of IPv6 is less than ideal
and as a result the community is scrambling for both policy and
technical answers to extend the viable life of IPv4.
As a community, we have done much to promote the adoption of IPv6. This
policy proposal extends the efforts by removing the APNIC application
barrier to receiving IPv6 address space.
3. Situation in other RIRs
---------------------------
RIPE:
2008-02,"Assigning IPv6 PA to Every LIR", a similar, but certainly
not the same, proposal, was withdrawn by the author due to lack of
support. There had been concern about the impact on member fees and
that the proposal would make IPv6 a commodity.
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2008-02.html
There have been no similar proposals in other regions.
4. Details of the proposal
---------------------------
This a proposal that APNIC issue an appropriately sized IPv6 delegation
to:
- Any APNIC member that holds APNIC-managed IPv4 addresses, but
does not yet have APNIC-managed IPv6 addresses
- Any APNIC member in future that applies for and receives IPv4
addresses but has not yet received APNIC-managed IPv6 addresses
The size of the IPv6 delegation made to the members described above will
be based on the following criteria:
- A member that has an IPv4 allocation shall be allocated
an IPv6 /32
- A member that has received an IPv4 assignment under the
multihoming policy shall be assigned an IPv6 /48 assgnment
- A member that has received an IPv4 assignment under the
IXP policy shall be assigned an IPv6 /48
It is the belief of the authors that an entity which has satisfied IPv4
criteria has done enough work to be assessed for IPv6 resources.
This proposal does not stop members from applying for further IPv6
resources under current policies.
A member should be given the opportunity to not automatically receive
IPv6 resources.
5. Advantages and disadvantages of the proposal
------------------------------------------------
5.1 Advantages
This proposal:
- Allows APNIC to engage with all IPv4 resource holders alerting
them to the need to start work on deploying IPv6 addressing.
- Couples the resource application process for IPv4 with IPv6 and
increases member benefit by avoiding duplication in the
application to APNIC.
- Removes another barrier to IPv6 adoption by providing all eligible
organisations with an IPv6 assignment or allocation.
5.2 Disadvantages
One possible argument is that it assigns resources to an entity
before it is requested by the entity as 'needed'. However, it
appears that while the entity hasn't requested it, the IPv6
allocation is needed in a broader sense to remove barriers and
promote IPv6 deployment.
6. Effect on APNIC members
---------------------------
6.1 Fees
No member's fees will increase as a result of this proposal
because under the APNIC fee schedule, assessed address fees
are the greater of the IPv4 and IPv6 fees. This proposal was
careful to ensure that IPv6 delegations would not increase a
member's annual fee.
6.2 Responsibility
A member would automatically acquire the responsibility to manage
and maintain a IPv6 allocation in the APNIC registry framework.
6.3 Address/Internet number resource consumption
There are about 1300 current APNIC members that do not hold an IPv6
allocation. Allocating a /32 to each of these members would result
in approximately a /22 to /21 of IPv6 address space allocated to
these 1300 members in total.
The actual allocation would be less than this as some members would
receive a /48.
7. Effect on NIRs
------------------
The impact on the NIR would depend if the NIR adopts this proposal for
their constituency.
_______________________________________________
Sig-policy-chair mailing list
Sig-policy-chair at apnic dot net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy-chair