________________________________________________________________________
prop-076-v001: Requiring aggregation for IPv6 subsequent allocations
________________________________________________________________________
Authors: Tomohiro Fujisaki
<fujisaki at syce dot net>
Akira Nakagawa
Toshio Tachibana
Fuminori Tanizaki
Version: 1
Date: 29 July 2009
1. Introduction
----------------
This is a proposal to make it a condition that LIRs aggregate
subsequent
IPv6 allocations that they receive from APNIC.
2. Summary of the current problem
----------------------------------
The initial IPv6 address allocation criteria requires that LIRs:
"Plan to provide IPv6 connectivity to organizations to which it
will
make assignments, by advertising that connectivity through its
single aggregated address allocation."[1]
However, there is no similar aggregation requirement in the criteria
for
subsequent allocations.
For consistency, the routing requirement should be applied also in
subsequent allocation criteria.
3. Situation in other RIRs
---------------------------
LACNIC:
The LACNIC community is currently discussing the following
proposal
to remove the requirement to announce an initial allocation as a
single prefix in favour of announcing the prefix with the minimum
possible level of disaggregation:
2007-01: Modifications to the IPv6 Prefix Initial Allocation
Policy
http://www.lacnic.net/documentos/politicas/LAC-2007-01v3-propuesta-en.pdf
RIPE:
The RIPE community is currently discussing the following proposal
to
remove routing requirements from IPv6 policy:
2009-06: Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address
Allocation Policy
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2009-06.html
AfriNIC and ARIN initial IPv6 allocation criteria require a plan to
aggregate, with no requirement for aggregation for subsequent
allocation
criteria. Neither RIR is has any proposal to modify these criteria.
4. Details
-----------
This is a proposal to add the requirement under the subsequent IPv6
allocation criteria to aggregate subsequent IPv6 allocations as a
single
prefix.
5. Pros/Cons
-------------
5.1 Advantages:
- By describing clearly in the policy as a requirement, it may
contribute to limiting routing expansion of the global IPv6
routing table in the future.
5.2 Disadvantages:
- This proposal may just be a nonbinding requirement.
- APNIC policy may be more strict than other regions if other
RIR communities decided to remove aggregation requirement from
their policy.
6. Effect on APNIC members
---------------------------
APNIC members will be required to aggregate subsequent allocations
as a
single prefix.
7. Effect on NIRs
------------------
Same as above.
8. References
--------------
[1] See section 5.2.1, "IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy"
http://www.apnic.net/ipv6-address-policy#5.2.1
* 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