[sig-policy] [Sig-policy-chair] prop-099 IPv6 Reservation for Large Netw

  • To: sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net
  • Subject: [sig-policy] [Sig-policy-chair] prop-099 IPv6 Reservation for Large Networks
  • From: Andy Linton <asjl at lpnz dot org>
  • Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2011 07:15:40 +1200
  • 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>
  • Organization: LPNZ
  • User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X; en-US; rv:1.8.1.17) Gecko/20080914 Lightning/0.9 Thunderbird/2.0.0.17 Mnenhy/0.7.5.666
    • 
      The proposal "prop-099 IPv6 Reservation for Large Networks" has been
      sent to the Policy SIG for review. It will be presented at the Policy
      SIG at APNIC 32 in Busan, Korea, Sunday, 28 August until Thursday, 1
      September 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
      
      Andy and Terence
      
      
      
      ------------------------------------------------------------------------
      prop-099-v001: IPv6 Reservation for Large Networks
      ------------------------------------------------------------------------
      
      Authors:       Xing Li <xing at cernet dot edu dot cn>
      
                      Song Jiang
                      Xiaomin Zhou
                      Haijin Li
      
      
      1. Introduction
      ---------------
      
      This proposal extends the IPv6 request process to allow large ISPs to
      request multiple prefixes within a single, contiguous, reserved space.
      
      Such a request must justify each prefix allocation in terms of specific
      demonstrated needs (in the same manner as a normal IPv6 allocation
      request); and must justify the total requested reservation in terms of
      documented architectural plans and projected space requirements for a
      period of up to 10 years.
      
      
      2. Summary of the current problem
      ---------------------------------
      
      Large networks are facing challenges deploying IPv6 networks. The
      current slow start policy is to allocate a /32 and then reduce the bit
      mask one bit at a time on subsequent allocations (i.e. /31, /30, /29
      etc.).
      
      This approach is designed to maximise global routing aggregation,
      however, it causes fragmentation and complexity in the internal routing
      configuration of very large networks. This is particularly a problem in
      large networks with many POPs growing at different rates.
      
      Also, the IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy (Section 5.2.3
      Larger initial allocations) does not take into account long-term future
      growth.
      
      A partial solution is available after prop-083 (Alternative criteria for
      subsequent IPv6 allocations) [1] where additional prefixes can be
      delegated to an organization’s disparate networks. However, this does
      not address the specific needs of organizations with very large
      non-disparate networks. These require a large address space over which
      they can design their network on a longer planning window (up to 10
      years).
      
      
      3. Situation in other RIRs
      --------------------------
      
      No similar policy or policy proposal is available in the other RIRs.
      
      
      4. Details
      ----------
      
      4.1. Multiple prefix request
      
            Each IPv6 request will be able to specify any number of prefixes,
            although each must be separately justified according to specific
            demonstrated needs.
      
            Conventional allocation policies will be applied in assessment of
            each prefix requested. In particular, existing IPv4 infrastructure
            can be considered, and the current minimum allocation size will
            apply to each prefix.
      
            Each request may specify a proposed map of requested prefixes
            within the reserved space, based on expected growth forecasts for
            each prefix.
      
            As the allocated prefixes grow and become aggregatable, external
            routing should be aggregated whenever possible.
      
      4.2. Subsequent allocations
      
            Subsequent allocations within the reserved space can be requested
            and made according to Section 5.3 of the IPv6 address allocation
            and assignment policy.
      
            Subsequent allocation requests can include extensions to previously
            allocated prefixes and/or new prefixes as needed.
      
      4.3. Reservation request
      
            Each IPv6 request will be able to specify a proposed reservation
            for the entire network, to contain all allocated prefixes, and room
            for their future growth.
      
            The requested reservation may accommodate projected network growth
            for up to 10 years, based on supporting information, which may
            include long-term network plans such as:
      
            * Network architecture
              o Number of POPs and the growth rate of each based on past
                records and future projection
              o IPv6 address assignment plan that covers the initial and the
                end deployment within the planning window
              o List of equipment and devices to be deployed in the network
                and,
      
            * Environmental factors such as:
              o Market size and market share
              o Population and economic growth of service region
      
      4.4. Reservation term
      
            Each reservation will be subject to expiry after 2 years, unless
            renewed by a request, which provides an update of network
            deployment and projections. No reservation will be expired or
            cancelled by APNIC without prior contact with the holder.
      
      4.5. Registration
      
            In case of a multiple-prefix allocation, only the individual
            allocated prefixes will be registered in whois, or included in
            resource certificates; the reservation itself will not be
            registered, however it may be separately documented.
      
      
      5. Pros/Cons
      ------------
      
      Advantages:
      
           - This proposal enables large networks to make long-term network
             plans and reduce internal routing complexities.
      
           - The reserved space is aggregated, and can be globally routed as a
             single prefix once the space is fully allocated.
      
           - The proposal allows long-term growth forecasts to be taken into
             account in the allocation process, without making allocation
             commitments based on those forecasts
      
      
      Disadvantages:
      
           - Initial allocation from the reserved space could be made in
             multiple disaggregated prefixes that have to be announced
             separately on the global routing table. However, as more
             allocations are made, the announcement could eventually converge
             to a smaller number of prefixes, or even to a single prefix.
      
           - Additional work for APNIC Secretariat to manage the request
             process, and regular renewals of reservations. The APNIC EC may
             want to look at the cost implication, which is out of scope of
             this policy proposal.
      
      
      
      6. Effect on APNIC
      ------------------
      
      APNIC account holders with large networks will be able to submit their
      long-term network plan and receive IPv6 allocations in stages according
      to that plan.
      
      
      7. Effect on NIRs
      -----------------
      
      The proposal allows NIRs to choose when to adopt this policy for their
      Members.