[sig-policy] prop-078: IPv6 deployment criteria for IPv4 final /8 delega

  • To: Policy SIG <sig-policy at apnic dot net>
  • Subject: [sig-policy] prop-078: IPv6 deployment criteria for IPv4 final /8 delegations
  • From: Randy Bush <randy at psg dot com>
  • Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2010 21:15:02 -0700
  • 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/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) Emacs/22.3 Mule/5.0 (SAKAKI)
    • 
      Version 2 of the proposal, 'IPv6 deployment criteria for IPv4 final /8
      delegations', has been sent to the Policy SIG for review. This proposal
      has been revised by the authors based on feedback received from the
      community at APNIC 28 and on the Policy SIG mailing list. Please note
      that as part of the revision, the title of the proposal has also been
      changed.
      
      Version 2 of the proposal will be presented at the Policy SIG at APNIC
      29 in Kuala Lumpur, 1-5 March 2010.
      
      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?
      
      
      Information about this and other policy proposals is available from:
      
             http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals
      
      
      Randy, Ching-Heng, and Terence
      
      
      ________________________________________________________________________
      
      prop-078-v002: IPv6 deployment criteria for IPv4 final /8 delegations
      
      ________________________________________________________________________
      
      
      Author:    Terence Zhang Yinghao <zhangyinghao at cnnic dot cn>
      
                  Jane Zhang <zhangjian at cnnic dot cn>
      
                  Wendy Zhao Wei <zhaowei at cnnic dot cn>
      
      Version:   2
      
      Date:      1 February 2010
      
      
      1.  Introduction
      ----------------
      
      This policy proposal seeks to ensure account holders use IPv4 addresses
      from the final /8 space for transitioning to IPv6. The proposal
      supplements the final /8 policy [1] by requiring applicants to
      demonstrate IPv6 deployment needs or a transition plan.
      
      The intent is to stimulate native IPv6 deployment as much as possible,
      while supporting the need for future networks to communicate with the
      IPv4 world.
      
      
      2.  Summary of the current problem
      ----------------------------------
      
      The Internet will use IPv4 for many years during the adoption of
      IPv6. During this period, account holders will need to connect to the
      IPv4 Internet while they deploy services using the IPv6 Internet.
      
      The final /8 policy[1] has the objective of assisting account holders to
      participate in the IPv4 Internet while they deploy services using the
      IPv6 Internet. However, the final /8 policy does not specifically
      require account holders to demonstrate IPv6 deployment needs or a
      transition plan.
      
      This means that under the current final /8 policy, small account holders
      could use their /22 allocation gained under the policy to grow IPv4
      services and not to begin the transition to IPv6.
      
      To make the message clear and ensure IPv4 space will remain available
      for account holders' IPv6 deployment, this policy proposal seeks to
      ensure account holders use the final /8 space for IPv6 transition.
      
      
      3.  Situation in other RIRs
      ---------------------------
      
      AfriNIC has a similar policy proposal under discussion:
      
           AFPUB-2009-v4-003: IPv4 Soft Landing Policy
           http://www.afrinic.net/docs/policies/AFPUB-2009-v4-003.htm
      
      ARIN has adopted a similar policy:
      
           2008-5: Dedicated IPv4 block to facilitate IPv6 Deployment
           https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2008_5.html
      
      RIPE has similar policy proposal under discussion:
      
           2009-04: IPv4 Allocation and Assignments to Facilitate IPv6
           Deployment
           http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2009-04.html
      
      LACNIC currently has no similar policy or proposal.
      
      
      4.  Details
      -----------
      
      It is proposed that to receive IPv4 addresses under the final /8 policy,
      account holders must meet the following additional criteria:
      
      
           1. The account holder must demonstrate either:
      
               i.  an IPv6 transition plan, OR
               ii. IPv6 deployment needs, especially the needs for IPv6 to IPv4
                   internetworking.
      
            2. The account holder must have either:
      
               i.  existing IPv6 addresses, OR
               ii. a valid application for IPv6 addresses.
      
      
      This proposal does not remove the existing conditions specified in the
      current final /8 policy[2].
      
      The /16 reserved for future uses[3] is exempted from the IPv6
      requirement.
      
      
      5.  Pros/Cons
      -------------
      
      5.1 Advantages
      
           - This proposal ensures account holders use the final /8 space for
             IPv6 transition, supporting the needs for future networks to
             communicate with the IPv4 world.
      
      
      5.2 Disadvantages
      
           - Some account holders will not be eligible to receive addresses
             from the final /8 if their sole intent is to grow IPv4 services.
      
      
      6.  Effect on APNIC Members
      ---------------------------
      
      This proposal requires APNIC account holders (existing and new) to
      demonstrate IPv6 deployment needs or transition plan to receive IPv4
      addresses from the final /8.
      
      
      7.  Effect on NIRs
      ------------------
      
      This proposal will have the same effect on NIRs as it does on APNIC
      Members.
      
      
      8. References
      -------------
      
      [1] See section 9.10, "Distribution of the final /8 worth of space in
           the unallocated APNIC IPv4 address pool" in "Policies for IPv4
           address space management in the Asia Pacific region"
           http://www.apnic.net/policy/add-manage-policy.html#9.10
      
      [2] See section 9.10.1, "Allocations to LIRs" in "Policies for
           IPv4 address space management in the Asia Pacific region"
           http://www.apnic.net/policy/add-manage-policy.html#9.10
      
      [3] See section 9.10.2, "Allocations for future uses" in "Policies for
           IPv4 address space management in the Asia Pacific region"
           http://www.apnic.net/policy/add-manage-policy.html#9.10