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