[sig-policy] prop-073-v002: Automatic allocation/assignment of IPv6

  • To: Policy SIG <sig-policy at apnic dot net>
  • Subject: [sig-policy] prop-073-v002: Automatic allocation/assignment of IPv6
  • From: Randy Bush <randy at psg dot com>
  • Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 18:17:27 +0900
  • Delivered-to: sig-policy at mailman dot apnic dot net
  • List-archive: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-policy>
  • List-help: <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=help>
  • List-id: APNIC SIG on resource management policy <sig-policy.lists.apnic.net>
  • List-post: <mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net>
  • List-subscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy>, <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=subscribe>
  • List-unsubscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy>, <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=unsubscribe>
  • User-agent: Wanderlust/2.15.5 (Almost Unreal) Emacs/22.3 Mule/5.0 (SAKAKI)
    • 
      Version 2 of 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.
      
      More about the proposal can be found at:
      
               http://www.apnic.net/community/policy/proposals
      
      This new version of the proposal reflects feedback from the community
      received on the Policy SIG mailing list:
      
           - While version 1 proposed automatic delegation of IPv6 addresses to
             APNIC members with IPv4 addresses, version 2 proposes reserving
             IPv6 addresses for members with IPv4, and providing members with a
             simplified way of requesting those resources be delegated to them.
      
           - To make it easier for a member to qualify for an IPv6 address
             delegation, this version specifies that new criteria be added to
             IPv6 allocation and assignment policies.
      
           - To reflect the above changes, sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 have
             significant changes, while section 7 has minor amendments.
      
      
      We encourage you to express your views on the proposal:
      
              - Do you support or oppose 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-v002: Automatic allocation/assignment of IPv6
      ________________________________________________________________________
      
      
      Authors:   Terry Manderson
                  <terry at terrym dot net>
      
                  Andy Linton
                  <asjl at lpnz dot org>
      
      Version:   2
      
      Date:      14 August 2009
      
      
      
      1.  Introduction
      ----------------
      
      This is a proposal to simplify the criteria for a member requesting an
      initial block of IPv6 addresses where the member already has an IPv4
      assignment or allocation.
      
      Under this proposal, APNIC would reserve the appropriately sized IPv6
      block for each APNIC member that has IPv4 addresses but does not yet
      have IPv6 addresses.
      
      It is further proposed that members holding IPv4 addresses be able to
      request the IPv6 space reserved for them through a simple one-step
      process.
      
      
      2.  Summary of current problem
      ------------------------------
      
      It is well understood that the final allocations of IPv4 address space
      are drawing very close.
      
      The community and APNIC Secretariat have done much to promote the
      adoption of IPv6. However, the authors recognize that the uptake of IPv6
      is less than ideal. As a result, the community is looking for ways to
      promote the adoption of IPv6 so that it can be added to members' network
      infrastructure.
      
      The authors believe that the current APNIC processes recognize that an
      entity which has satisfied IPv4 criteria has done enough work to be
      assessed for IPv6 resources.
      
      This policy proposal aims to further promote IPv6 adoption by
      simplifying the process of applying to APNIC for 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 by issuing IPv6 addresses that hadn't been explicitly requested
           the proposal could make IPv6 a commodity.
      
               http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2008-02.html
      
      ARIN:
      
           We understand that there have been discussions on this topic in the
           ARIN region but we have not identified a formal proposal.
      
      There have been no similar proposals in other regions.
      
      
      4.  Details of the proposal
      ---------------------------
      
      It is proposed that:
      
      4.1 Alternative criteria be added to the IPv6 allocation and assignment
           policies to allow APNIC members that have IPv4 but no IPv6 space
           to qualify for an appropriately size IPv6 block under the matching
           IPv6 policy.
      
      
      4.2 The APNIC Secretariat reserve an appropriately sized IPv6
           delegation for:
      
           - 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
      
      
      4.3 The size of the IPv6 reservation for the members described in
           section 4.2 above will be based on the following criteria:
      
           - A member that has an IPv4 allocation shall be reserved
             an IPv6 /32
      
           - A member that has received an IPv4 assignment under the
             multihoming policy shall be reserved an IPv6 /48
      
           - A member that has received an IPv4 assignment under the
             IXP or Critical Infrastructure policies shall be reserved an
             IPv6 /48
      
      
      4.4  APNIC members can request the reserved IPv6 address block be
            allocated/assigned to their member account via a simple mechanism
            in existing APNIC on-line systems.
      
      
      To increase visibility of this proposal, the authors recommend that the
      APNIC Secretariat communicate to members and others that the criteria
      for receiving IPv6 space has been reduced and that the process of
      obtaining IPv6 address space has been made simpler. We recommend this to
      show that there is no effective barrier to members obtaining IPv6
      addresses.
      
      Current IPv6 policies are still available for members who apply for IPv6
      addresses without existing IPv4 addresses, or who apply for subsequent
      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.
      
           - Pre-approves IPv6 resource delegations based on existing IPv4
             holdings.
      
           - Increases member benefit by avoiding duplication and effort in
             applying to APNIC for IPv6 when they have already demonstrated
             their network needs for an IPv4 delegation.
      
           - Removes another barrier to IPv6 adoption by providing all eligible
             organisations with an IPv6 assignment or allocation through a
             simple request.
      
      
      5.2 Disadvantages
      
           This proposal does not deal with the need to encourage holders
           of "Historic Internet resources" to apply for IPv6 address space.
      
      
      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 fees (based on the recently revised APNIC fee
           structure).
      
      
      6.2 Responsibility
      
           A member would 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 a maximum of /22 to /21 of IPv6 address space allocated if
           all 1300 members requested space.
      
           The actual allocation would be less than this as some members would
           receive a /48.
      
      
      7.  Effect on NIRs
      ------------------
      
      The impact on any NIR would depend if the NIR adopts this proposal for
      their constituency.