[sig-policy] prop-073-v003: Automatic allocation/assignment of IPv6
Version 3 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:
- Section 4.2 of version 2 has been removed in this third version
and the subsequent sections renumbered accordingly.
- Section 4.3 from version 2 (now section 4.2) has been amended to
reflect the removal of section 4.2 from version 2.
- A new section 4.4 has been added to suggest that it is at the
APNIC Secretariat's discretion to reserve IPv6 blocks under
this proposal.
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-v003: Automatic allocation/assignment of IPv6
________________________________________________________________________
Authors: Terry Manderson
<terry at terrym dot net>
Andy Linton
<asjl at lpnz dot org>
Version: 3
Date: 19 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 size of the IPv6 delegation for members that meet the
alternative criteria described in section 4.1 above will be based on
the following:
- A member that has an IPv4 allocation would be eligible for
an IPv6 /32
- A member that has received an IPv4 assignment under the
multihoming policy would be eligible for an IPv6 /48
- A member that has received an IPv4 assignment under the
IXP or Critical Infrastructure policies would be eligible for
an IPv6 /48
4.3 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.
4.4 The APNIC Secretariat may reserve prefixes for any or all
qualifying members to allow for a seamless allocation process. It
is a responsibility of the Secretariat to select an appropriate
reservation schedule, and as such the reservation of a prefix is
not fixed in size, scope, nor time.
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
organizations 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.