[sig-policy] prop-089: Additional criterion for final /8 allocations (an

  • To: "Policy SIG" <sig-policy at apnic dot net>
  • Subject: [sig-policy] prop-089: Additional criterion for final /8 allocations (and assigments)
  • From: "Terence Zhang YH" <zhangyinghao at cnnic dot cn>
  • Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 16:31:09 +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>
    • Dear SIG members,
      
      The proposal, 'Additional criterion for final /8 allocations (and
      assignments)', has been sent to the Policy SIG for review. It will be
      presented at the Policy SIG at APNIC 31 in Hong Kong, 21-25 February
      2011.
      
      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
      
      
      Gaurab, Ching-Heng, and Terence
      
      ________________________________________________________________________
      
      prop-089:  Additional criterion for final /8 allocations (and
                  assignments)
      ________________________________________________________________________
      
      Author:    David Woodhouse
                  <david at woodhou dot se>
      
      Version:   1
      
      Date:      11 January 2011
      
      
      
      
      1.  Introduction
      ----------------
      
      This proposal seeks to restrict the availability of IPv4 allocations and
      assignments from the final /8 to those members who are responsibly
      working to ease the transition period to IPv6 as we reach the final
      stages of IPv4 exhaustion.
      
      
      2.  Summary
      -----------
      
      APNIC shares with its members and their customers a collective
      responsibility to ensure manageable and scalable Internet growth[1].
      
      It was once hoped that the transition to IPv6 would be completed long
      before the exhaustion of the IPv4 address space. The current 'crisis',
      if we can call it such, is can be attributed mostly to the fact that so
      many networks have been so slow to deploy IPv6.
      
      Even today, many organisations are not yet ready to deploy IPv6, and are
      hoping to receive further allocations of IPv4 address space. Such a
      continued expansion of IPv4-only usage by those without a viable
      transition plan will help to drag out the transition period and
      exacerbate the issue for everyone.
      
      A failure to deploy IPv6, even during the final stages of IPv4
      exhaustion, demonstrates a clear failure to fulfil the above-mentioned
      responsibility.
      
      
      3.  Situation in other RIRs
      ---------------------------
      
      AfriNIC
      
           The 'IPv4 Soft Landing Proposal' includes a provision that any
           network receiving IPv4 addresses during the proposed second part
           of the "exhaustion phase" defined in the proposal will also be
           delegated IPv6 addresses if they do not have any yet:
      
           http://www.afrinic.net/docs/policies/AFPUB-2010-v4-005.htm
      
      ARIN:
      
           Policy Proposal 125, 'Efficient Utilization of IPv4 Requires
           Dual-Stack' was abandoned by the ARIN AC. The decision is
           currently being petitioned for re-inclusion of the proposal for
           discussion by the ARIN community:
      
           http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/2010-December/019054.html
      
      RIPE:
      
           Policy Proposal 2010-2, 'Allocations from the last /8' includes a
           provision that allocations shall only be made to LIRs if they have
           already received an IPv6 allocation.
      
           http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2010-02.html
      
      
      There is no similar proposal in the LACNIC region.
      
      
      4.  Details
      -----------
      
      This is a proposal that amends the IPv4 allocation and assignment
      criteria to including the following additional criterion:
      
           - To qualify for an allocation or assignment of IPv4, an
             organization should have a viable IPv6 deployment.
      
      
      The meaning of what a "viable IPv6 deployment" is will depend on the
      type of organization is requesting the IPv4 addresses. A couple of
      examples are included below for clarity:
      
           - Hosting service or organisation offering public-facing services
      
             Each service the organisation offers on the newly-delegated IP
             addresses should be accessible by IPv6. It would not need to be on
             the same host, the same interface, or even in the same data
             centre. If accessed by DNS, it should be accessed using the same
             hostname.
      
           - ISP or network provider
      
             The provider's default installation to new customers should
             include functional IPv6 connectivity, and IPv6 should be available
             to all end users on request within reasonable time/cost. As it
             isn't practical to require providers to instantly upgrade all
             existing equipment, this IPv6 requirement applies to new
             deployments which presumably use new equipment.
      
      
      5.  Pros/Cons
      -------------
      
      Advantages:
      
           - This proposal will accelerate the adoption of IPv6 and help to
             reduce the transition period.
      
             Even if the proposal fails completely in that aim, the proposed
             policy should still reduce the number of allocations to those
             organisations who would needlessly prolong the transition by
             deploying more IPv4-only services and networks at a time when all
             responsible organisations are fixing their existing legacy
             systems.
      
      
      Disadvantages:
      
           - Those organisation who had intended to further delay their
             inevitable adoption of IPv6, and exacerbate the problems by
             continuing to deploy IPv4-only services, will not be able to
             receive IPv4 addresses from the final /8. Effectively, the
             exhaustion will reach them just a little sooner than it reaches
             everybody else.
      
      
      6.  Effect on APNIC
      -------------------
      
      The principal effect would be accelerated adoption of IPv6 by APNIC
      members.
      
      IPv4 exhaustion will affect APNIC members who have not yet taken steps
      to deal with it, before it affects those who have fulfilled their
      long-foreseen responsibility to adapt.
      
      
      7.  Effect on NIRs
      ------------------
      
      It is expected that NIRs would implement a matching policy for the final
      allocation phase.
      
      
      8.  References
      --------------
      
      [1] Section 6.3, " Collective responsibility" in "Policies for IPv4
           address space management in the Asia Pacific region"
           http://www.apnic.net/policy/add-manage-policy#6.3