[sig-policy] prop-082: Removing aggregation criteria for IPv6 initial al
The proposal, 'Removing aggregation criteria for IPv6 initial
allocations', has been sent to the Policy SIG for review. It 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-082-v001: Removing aggregation criteria for IPv6 initial
allocations
________________________________________________________________________
Author: Tomohiro Fujisaki <fujisaki at syce dot net>
Co-authors: Akira Nakagawa
Fuminori Tanizaki
Masaru Akai
Toshio Tachibana
Version: 1
Date: 2 February 2010
1. Introduction
----------------
This is a proposal to remove the aggregation requirement from the IPv6
initial allocation policy.
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 either the
criteria for subsequent allocations, or in the new IPv6 allocation
criteria for APNIC Members.
Including the aggregation requirement is problematic for two reasons:
1. It is inconsistent with the criteria for IPv6 allocations under
two other APNIC policies, which do not require aggregation. These
policies are:
- Subsequent IPv6 allocations
- The new kickstart IPv6 allocation criteria to be
implemented 10 February 2010 [2]
2. Registry policy should not concern itself strongly with routing
issues.
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 has recently removed routing requirements from
its 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 aggregation requirement for subsequent allocation
criteria. Neither RIR has any proposal to modify these criteria.
4. Details
-----------
This is a proposal to:
4.1 Remove the requirement under the initial IPv6 allocation criteria to
aggregate an initial IPv6 allocation as a single prefix.
4.2 Include a stronger recommendation about the importance of
aggregation to the IPv6 policy document.
The APNIC IPv6 policy document currently does include information
about the importance of aggregation[3]. However, it is the opinion
of this proposal's authors that the recommendation should be more
strongly expressed.
5. Pros/Cons
-------------
5.1 Advantages
- This policy lowers the barriers for obtaining IPv6 address.
- Other RIR communities are discussing removing aggregation
requirements from their policies, so it would be appropriate for
APNIC policy to maintain similar criteria to other regions.
5.2 Disadvantages
- By removing the aggregation requirement in the policy,
deaggregated routes may begin to be announced more frequently.
6. Effect on APNIC Members
---------------------------
None.
7. Effect on NIRs
------------------
None.
8. References
--------------
[1] See section 5.2.1, "IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy"
<http://www.apnic.net/policy/ipv6-address-policy#5.2.1>
[2] prop-073: Simplifying allocation/assignment of IPv6 to APNIC Members
with existing IPv4 addresses
<http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-073>
[3] See section 3.4, "IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy"
<http://www.apnic.net/policy/ipv6-address-policy#3.4>