[sig-policy] prop-098 Optimizing IPv6 allocation strategies (simplified)

  • To: sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net
  • Subject: [sig-policy] prop-098 Optimizing IPv6 allocation strategies (simplified)
  • From: Andy Linton <asjl at lpnz dot org>
  • Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2011 07:32:41 +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-098 Optimizing IPv6 allocation strategies
      (simplified)" 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-098-v001: Optimizing IPv6 allocation strategies (simplified)
      ________________________________________________________________________
      
      
      Author:        Owen DeLong
      <owen at delong dot com>
      
      Version:       1
      
      Date:          2 August 2011
      
      
      1. Introduction
      ---------------
      
      This is a proposal to allow for more generous IPv6 allocations to
      service providers in order to promote better aggregation and easier
      optimization across their networks as they grow.
      
      
      2. Summary of current problem
      -----------------------------
      
      2.1. Many LIRs are of the errant belief that they must fit their entire
            subscriber base within a single /32 and that they cannot easily
            obtain larger allocations from their RIR or NIR.
      
      2.2. Many network outages have been caused by on-the-fly bit math errors
            and by aligning addressing blocks on nibble boundaries, at least
            where it makes sense, these errors can be reduced or eliminated.
      
      2.3. Continued proliferation of the /32 mindset described in (1) above
            will eventually lead to significant unnecessary disaggregation and
            larger IPv6 routing tables.
      
      2.4. The HD ratio, while a good mathematical model leaves much to be
            desired as an address administration tool. Using nibble-boundaries
            and rounding up actually yields similar results with simpler math.
      
      
      3. Situation in other RIRs:
      ---------------------------
      
      ARIN:
      
            - Adopted, awaiting implementation by staff.
      
      RIPE:
      
            - As RIPE NCC seems to be currently issuing generous allocations,
              the author does not currently intend to submit a proposal to
              RIPE. However, the author may subsequently submit a policy to
              align RIPE allocations on nibble boundaries.
      
      LACNIC and AfriNIC:
      
            - Author is working on proposals for these regions.
      
      
      4.  Details of the proposal
      ---------------------------
      
      Amend IPv6 allocation policy as follows:
      
      1. Add the following definitions:
      
            Nibble boundary: The point in a binary string where one hex digit
            ends and another begins.
      
            Provider Allocation Unit: The unit by which an LIRs utilization is
            measured. It is defined as the smallest reassignment unit used by
            the provider.
      
      2. Redefine the following terms:
      
            End site:
            A single structure or service delivery address, or a
            single tenant within a multi-tenant structure.
      
            - The intent of this definition is to provide greater clarity and
              flexibility in allowing ISPs to meet the needs of their
              customers.
      
            Utilized:
            (i)  A provider allocation unit shall be considered fully
                 utilized when it is assigned to an end site or allocated to a
                 customer LIR.
      
            (ii) The utilization percentage of a block at the LIR level is
                 calculated as the fraction of total provider assignment units
                 which have been assigned to end sites or allocated to
                 customer LIRs.
      
      
      3. Make all allocations and assignments on nibble boundaries.
      
      
      4. Allow LIRs to request nibble-aligned blocks of any size greater than
          or equal to /36.
      
          4.1 The default minimum is /32 unless the provider specifically
              asks for a /36.
      
          4.2 The maximum allocation shall be the smallest block which allows
              the provider to accommodate 5 years of projected customer
              utilization based on assigning each customer end-site one
              provider allocation unit without exceeding a 75% utilization. If
              the provider has no allocation or assignment history, the
              provider may specify their provider allocation unit at the time
              of application.
      
          4.3 An LIR which has subordinate LIRs may count the required
              allocation for each subordinate LIR as fully utilized blocks of
              PAUs in the calculation for 4.2.
      
      5. Modify the subsequent allocation process.
      
           5.1 To qualify for a subsequent allocation, an LIR must meet one of
               the following two criteria:
      
               - 75% or more utilization of their total address space, OR
      
               - One or more facilities which have reached a 90% utilization of
                 the blocks allocated to those facilities and there are no
                 available blocks of sufficient size in the providers current
                 allocation(s) to expand those facilities.
      
           5.2 When making a subsequent allocation, APNIC will use the
               following procedure:
      
               Whenever possible, expand one or more existing allocations to
               the next nibble.
      
               When the above expansion cannot meet the need, make a new
               allocation large enough to encompass all existing allocations
               plus the need justified in this request.
      
               Such allocation shall not exceed a /16, but, a provider may
               receive as many /16s as are required to meet their justified
               needs.
      
               When this occurs, an LIR is encouraged to vacate their old
               allocations through attrition and return vacated space when
               feasible. The LIR is not required to vacate the space, but, it
               is encouraged. Once vacated, the space should be returned.
      
      6. Allow LIRs with existing allocations to expand their allocation size
          if they are eligible for a larger block under the criteria in this
          proposal.
      
          Any LIR which received an allocation under previous policies which is
          smaller than what they are entitled to under this policy may receive
          a new initial allocation under this policy based on the procedure and
          criteria in 5.2.
      
      
      5.  Advantages and disadvantages of the proposal
      ------------------------------------------------
      
      Advantages:
      
            - Provides nibble-boundaries for direct allocations and for at
              least one level of network hierarchy within the LIR, reducing the
              potential for human factors errors.
      
            - Increases the potential for network aggregation by issuing very
              large blocks to ISPs.
      
            - Reduces the potential for harmful under-sized assignments to end
              users by removing any incentive to do so.
      
            - Simplifies the IPv6 allocation policy by removing logarithmic
              computations in favor of simple ratios.
      
            - Reduces the number of times any given LIR will need to return to
              APNIC for additional allocations.
      
            - Allows for better network planning and growth.
      
      Disadvantages:
      
            - May increase IPv6 address allocation. Probable impact over 50
              years would reduce IPv6 free pool from 99.9995% to 99.62%.
      
      
      6.  Effect on APNIC Members
      ---------------------------
      
      APNIC LIR members will be able to obtain significantly larger blocks of
      IPv6 addresses and both receive and make their initial allocations and
      assignments on nibble boundaries to simplify human factors and network
      management while improving aggregation.
      
      
      7. Effect on NIRs
      -----------------
      
      This policy should not significantly impact NIRs.
      
      
      8. References
      -------------
      
      [1] Section 5.5, 'Assignment', in 'APNIC IPv6 Allocation Policy'
           http://www.apnic.net/policy/ipv6-address-policy#5.5