[sig-policy] updated: prop-073

  • To: Policy SIG <sig-policy at apnic dot net>
  • Subject: [sig-policy] updated: prop-073
  • From: Randy Bush <randy at psg dot com>
  • Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 17:10:48 +0800
  • 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)
    • 
      Below is an updated version of the proposal that includes the elements
      of the transfer proposal that reached consensus in the APNIC 28 Policy
      SIG as well as a couple of administrative updates.
      
      The following changes have been made:
      
            - Section 4.2 in "Details of the proposal" has been replaced with
              the revised text that reached consensus during the APNIC 28
              Policy SIG:
      
                  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 an IPv4 assignment would be eligible
                        for an IPv6 /48
      
            - The title of the proposal has been changed to reflect the change
              away from automatic allocation/assignment
      
            - Section 4.3 in "Details of the proposal" removes the reference
              to reservations.
      
      The proposal's history can be found at:
      
           http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-073
      
      The proposal will be presented to the APNIC Member Meeting tomorrow for
      consensus, and then will be followed by a formal eight-week final call
      for comments on this mailing list.
      
      
      Randy, Ching-Heng, and Terence
      
      
      
      ________________________________________________________________________
      
      prop-073-v004: Simplifying allocation/assignment of IPv6 to APNIC
                      members with existing IPv4 addresses
      ________________________________________________________________________
      Simplifying allocation/assignment of IPv6 to APNIC members with existing 
      IPv4 addresses
      
      Authors:   Terry Manderson
                  <terry at terrym dot net>
      
                  Andy Linton
                  <asjl at lpnz dot org>
      
      Version:   4
      
      Date:      27 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 an IPv4 assignment would be eligible for an 
      IPv6
             /48
      
      
      4.3  APNIC members can request the 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 an initial IPv6 block 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.