[sig-policy] prop-101-v002: Removing multihoming , requirement for IPv6

  • To: Policy SIG <sig-policy at apnic dot net>
  • Subject: [sig-policy] prop-101-v002: Removing multihoming , requirement for IPv6 portable assignments
  • From: Andy Linton <asjl at lpnz dot org>
  • Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 18:26:43 +1300
  • Authentication-results: mr.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of asjl@lpnz.org designates as permitted sender) smtp.mail=asjl@lpnz.org; dkim=pass header.i=asjl@lpnz.org
  • 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: Gecko/20080914 Lightning/0.9 Thunderbird/ Mnenhy/
      Version 002 of the proposal "prop-101: Removing multihoming
      requirement for IPv6 portable assignments" has been sent to
      the Policy SIG for review. It will be presented at the Policy SIG at
      APNIC 33 in New Delhi, India, on 1 March 2012.
      Information about this and other policy proposals is available from:
      This new version of the proposal reflects feedback from the community
      received on the Policy SIG mailing list:
            - Section 4D has been altered to reference the Applied HD-Ratio
              Threshold specified in section 5.3.1 of the APNIC IPv6 policy as
              the basis for the allocation of portable assignments larger than
            - Section 4F has been deleted, it having been suggested that this
              clause was unnecessary.
      You are encouraged you to express your views on the proposal:
                 - Do you support or oppose this proposal?
                 - Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear?
                 - What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more
      Andy, Skeeve, and Masato
      prop-101-v001: Removing multihoming requirement for IPv6 portable
      Author:  David Woodgate
                <dwoodgate5 at gmail dot com>
      1.  Introduction
      This a proposal to change the "IPv6 address allocation and assignment
      policy" to allow portable (that is, provider independent or PI)
      assignments of IPv6 address blocks to be made by APNIC to any
      organization with due justification and payment of standard fees,
      removing the current requirement that the requestor is or plans to be
      2.  Summary of the current problem
      Current APNIC policy only permits portable assignments of IPv6 addresses
      to be made to an organization "if it is currently multihomed or plans to
      be multihomed within three months." [1] This requirement may
      unnecessarily complicate the implementation of IPv6 in some networks
      that are large or complex and use static assignment of addresses. It is
      therefore proposed to remove this requirement.
      IPv6 models tend to assume widespread assignment of registered IPv6
      addresses to equipment throughout a network; so if provider assigned
      IPv6 addresses have been used in an organization's network, then any
      change of ISP would require a renumbering of the entire network. Such
      renumbering may be feasible if the network is small or dynamically
      assigned (for example, through use of prefix-delegation), but
      renumbering a large, statically-assigned network would be a significant
      operational challenge, and may not be practically possible.
      Although it is likely that many large networks would be multihomed,
      there will be technical or commercial reasons why some will not be;
      currently those networks cannot obtain portable IPv6 assignments from
      APNIC, and would need to use assignments from their ISPs, and accept the
      associated difficulties of future renumbering if they do so. This
      consideration and complexity could significantly delay IPv6 use by the
      affected organisations, which is not desirable.
      There is a risk that removing the multihoming requirement could cause a
      significant increase in demand for portable assignments, which in turn
      could cause the Internet routing tables to grow beyond manageable
      levels. It is not feasible to quickly generate any realistic model of
      likely demand increase which would arise from the proposed policy
      change, but it is argued that any such increase would only be of a scale
      to produce a manageable impact on global routing, for reasons including:
           - Organizations would only be likely to seek portable addressing if
             they believed it were essential for their operations, as provider
             assigned IPv6 addressing would be likely to be offered
             automatically and at no additional cost with their Internet
             services from their ISP;
           - APNIC membership fees would be expected to naturally discourage
             unnecessary requests, as these would be a far greater cost than
             that for provider assigned addressing;
           - Many or most organizations that require portable addressing will
             be multihomed, so the demand increase caused by removing the
             multihomed requirement should be small;
           - Only a limited set of an ISP's products is likely to allow
             customers to use portable assignments if they are singly-homed.
      3.  Situation in other RIRs
      APNIC is now the only RIR remaining with an absolute requirement for
      multihoming for portable address assignments.
      AfriNIC: The "Policy for IPv6 ProviderIndependent (PI) Assignment for
      End-Sites" [2] does not mention any requirement for multihoming;
      ARIN: Section 6.5.8 of the "ARIN Number Resource Policy Manual" [3] only
      identifies multihoming as one of several alternative criteria for direct
      IPv6 assignment to end-user organizations;
      LACNIC: There is no mention of multihoming anywhere in the IPv6 section
      (Section 4) of the current LACNIC Policy Manual (v1.8 - 07/12/2011) [4].
      RIPE: The latest version (RIPE-545 [5]) published in January 2012 of the
      "IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy" does not mention
      multihoming, removing the requirement that existed in previous versions
      of the document.
      4.  Details
      It is proposed that section 5.9.1 of APNIC's "IPv6 address allocation
      and assignment policy" (apnic-089-v010) is rewritten to remove the
      absolute multihoming requirement for portable assignments, and to
      incorporate the following conditions:
         A.  Portable IPv6 assignments are to be made only to organizations
             that have either joined APNIC as members or have signed the
             non-member agreement, under the standard terms & conditions and
             paying the standard fees applicable for their respective category.
         B.  An organization will be eligible for a portable assignment if they
             have previously justified an IPv4 portable assignment from APNIC.
         C.  A request for an IPv6 portable assignment will need to be
             accompanied by a reasonable technical justification indicating why
             IPv6 addresses from an ISP or other LIR are unsuitable.
         D.  The minimum IPv6 portable assignment to any organization is to be
             an address block of /48. A portable assignment of a larger block
             (that is, a block with a prefix mask less than /48) may be made:
             (i)  If it is needed to ensure that the HD-ratio for the planned
                  network assignments from the block remains below the applied
                  HD-ratio threshold specified in Section 5.3.1 of the APNIC
                  IPv6 policy [6], or;
             (ii) If addressing is required for 2 or more of the organization's
                  sites operating distinct and unconnected networks.
         E.  In order to minimise routing table impacts:
             (a) Only one IPv6 address block is to be given to an organization
                 upon an initial request for a portable assignment; subnets of
                 this block may be assigned by the organization to its
                 different sites if needed;
             (b) It is recommended that the APNIC Secretariat applies sparse
                 allocation methodologies so that any subsequent requests from
                 an organization for additional portable addressing would be
                 accommodated where possible through a change of prefix mask of
                 a previous assignment (for example, 2001:db8:1000::/48 ->
                 2001:db8:1000::/44), rather than through allocation of a new
                 prefix. An additional prefix should only be allocated where it
                 is not possible to simply change the prefix mask.
             (c) Any subsequent request for an additional portable assignment
                 to an organization must be accompanied by information
                 (i) Why an additional portable assignment is required, and why
                     an assignment from from an ISP or other LIR cannot be used
                     for this purpose instead;
                 (ii)  That the use of previous portable IPv6 allocations
                       generated the minimum possible number of global routing
                       announcements and the maximum aggregation of that block;
                 (iii) How the additional assignment would be managed to
                       minimise the growth of the global IPv6 routing table.
      5.  Pros/Cons
         - This proposal would provide access to portable IPv6 addresses for
           all organizations with valid needs, removing a potential impediment
           to industry standard IPv6 addressing for large singly-homed networks
         - This change would align APNIC with the policies of all other RIRs on
           portable assignments
         - There would be a risk of an unmanageably large increase in global
           IPv6 routing table size and APNIC workload if there were to be a
           substantial and widespread increase in demand for portable
           assignments arising from the removal of the multihoming requirement
         - But demand is expected to be limited by the requirements specified
           in section 4 for justifications and APNIC standard fees, as well as
           other industry factors such as the capability of Internet services
           to support portable addressing.
      6.  Effect on APNIC
      The impact of this proposal on the APNIC Secretariat would depend on the
      increase of demand for portable assignments. Even if demand is
      eventually large, it is unlikely that there will be an significant
      change in hostmaster workloads for a long time because of the slow rate
      of take up of IPv6, and so there should be sufficient time to identify
      and take steps to modify policies and processes if necessary to manage
      the increase.
      7.  Effect on NIRs
      This proposal specifically applies to portable assignments made by
      APNIC. It would be the choice of each NIR as to whether they would adopt
      a similar policy.
      8.  References:
      [1] Section 5.9.1, IPv6 address allocation and assignment policy,
      [2] http://www.afrinic.net/docs/policies/AFPUB-2007-v6-001.htm
      [3] https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#six58
      [4] http://www.lacnic.net/en/politicas/manual5.html
      [5] http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-545
      [6] Section 5.3.1, IPv6 address allocation and assignment policy,