[sig-policy] prop-102-v002: Sparse allocation guidelines for IPv6 resour

  • To: sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net
  • Subject: [sig-policy] prop-102-v002: Sparse allocation guidelines for IPv6 resource allocations
  • From: Andy Linton <asjl at lpnz dot org>
  • Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 23:05:43 +0530
  • Authentication-results: mr.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of asjl@lpnz.org designates 10.68.240.135 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:1.8.1.17) Gecko/20080914 Lightning/0.9 Thunderbird/2.0.0.17 Mnenhy/0.7.5.666
    • 
      Version 002 of the proposal "prop-101:  Sparse allocation guidelines for
      IPv6 resource allocations" 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:
      
                 http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals
      
      This new version of the proposal reflects feedback from the community
      received on the Policy SIG mailing list:
      
           -  Ren-Hung Hwang added as a co-author
      
           -  Requires APNIC to publish the Sparse allocation algorithm as a
      numbered document
      
           -  Removes the objective to ensure requesters can access space
      sufficient for a 5 year
              growth program
      
      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
      effective?
      
      Regards,
      
      Andy, Skeeve, and Masato
      
      
      ----------------------------------------------------------------------
      
      prop-102-v002: Sparse allocation guidelines for IPv6 resource
                      allocations
      
      ----------------------------------------------------------------------
      
      
      Author:      Dean Pemberton
                    <dean at deanpemberton dot com>
      
      Co-authors:  Ren-Hung Hwang
                    <rhhwang at gmail dot com>
      
      
      
      1.  Introduction
      ----------------
      
      This proposal formalises the current use of a sparse allocation
      strategy when allocating IPv6 resources from the APNIC free pool. The
      proposal also requires that the allocation algorithm must be published
      on the website, and any revisions should go through a discussion period
      to receive feedback.
      
      
      2.  Summary of the current problem
      ----------------------------------
      
      Large networks and economies are requesting  blocks of IPv6 space
      larger than the current allocation models allow. At present the
      allocation strategies look at a timeline on the order of 1-2 years.
      Organisations are now having to look to a 5-10 year time-frame when
      deploying large IPv6 networks.
      
      They are understandably concerned about their ability to secure access
      to 5-10 years of aggregatable address space if they are only allocated
      on 1-2 year needs basis. We have seen requests in proposals such as
      prop-98, prop-99 and prop-100, which seek to find ways to allow for
      larger allocations or reserve an amount of space for future
      organisational use. All of these proposals seek to make large changes to
      the way that IPv6 addresses are allocated by APNIC in order to address
      these legitimate concerns.
      
      It would seem however that there is an alternative solution which
      would only require a small change to current operating procedure.
      
      At present the APNIC operating procedure is for hostmasters to use a
      method of sparse-allocation when allocating IPv6 addresses out of the
      APNIC free pool.
      
      The sparse-allocation allows for allocations to be given from a larger
      pool in such a way that members can request neighbouring allocations at
      a later date and aggregate these together in to a larger routable
      allocation.
      
      While this has been APNIC operating procedure for some time, it is not
      subject to oversight by any particular APNIC policy. As such the exact
      algorithm used as well as the parameters around this sparse-allocation
      algorithm are not open to member input or adjustment through the policy
      development process.
      
      While members may surmise that a neighbouring allocation may be
      waiting for them should they need it, this is not guarenteed and
      therefore can not be used as part of the members future planning
      process.
      
      
      3.  Situation in other RIRs
      ---------------------------
      
      Unknown at this point.
      
      
      4.  Details
      -----------
      
      This proposal seeks to make the following additions/changes to APNIC
      policy
      
      1. APNIC should the use sparse allocation when allocating IPv6
      resources from APNIC address pools
      
      2.  APNIC must publish the details of the sparse allocation framework
      on the APNIC website as a numbered document. Changes to this document
      should be handled as per APNIC-112 "APNIC document editorial policy".
      
      
      5.  Pros/Cons
      -------------
      
      Advantages:
      
           -  APNIC Members will have surety that the current sparse allocation
              mechanism will continue to be used. -  Through the use of sparse
              allocation, APNIC Members are able to ensure that they will
              receive aggregatable blocks within a longer planning window. They
              can use this surety in their internal network planning processes.
      
      
      Disadvantages:
      
           -  The hostmasters would be required to document and publish the
              sparse allocation mechanism. This may have an increased workload
              requirement. It is not anticipated that this increase would be
              significant as changes to the algorithm are not expected to occur
              frequently.
      
      
      6.  Effect on APNIC Members
      --------------------------
      
      APNIC members would be able to see the published details of the sparse
      allocation policy used by APNIC to allocate IPv6 resources from its
      address pool.
      
      APNIC members would apply for address space much like they do today
      and an allocation would be made under the same rules as apnic-089-v010.
      The only different would be that if the member can show a growth
      estimate for up to 5 years, APNIC will allocate their resources from a
      sparse allocation to accommodate this growth and future resource
      requests.
      
      
      7.  Effect on NIRs
      ------------------
      
      The policy would apply when NIRs request address space from APNIC The
      proposal allows NIRs to choose when to adopt this policy for their
      Members.