[sig-policy] New Version: prop-101-v003: Removing multihoming requiremen

  • To: sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net
  • Subject: [sig-policy] New Version: prop-101-v003: Removing multihoming requirement for IPv6 portable assignments
  • From: Andy Linton <asjl at lpnz dot org>
  • Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2012 14:24:29 +0530
  • 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 003 of the proposal "prop-101:  Sparse allocation guidelines for
      IPv6 resource allocations" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.
      This new version of the proposal reflects feedback from the community
      received on the Policy SIG mailing list:
              - Section 4 now includes two additional clauses at (d) and (e)
      The proposal text is available below or at the following URL:
      Information about this and other policy proposals is available from:
      Andy, Skeeve, and Masato
      prop-101-v003: Removing multihoming requirement for IPv6 portable
      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.
      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 demonstrating:
      (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
             (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.
           (d)  The APNIC Secretariat will produce reports of the number of
      portable IPv6 assignments requested, preferably as an
      automatically-generated daily graph of the number of cumulative IPv6
      portable assignments published publically on the APNIC website, or else
      as regular (at a minimum, quarterly) reports sent to the sig-policy
      mailing list detailing the incremental assignments of new IPv6 portable
      assignments made since the last report, plus the cumulative total of
      IPv6 portable assignments.
           (e)  The first Policy SIG meeting of 2014 (expected to be APNIC
      Meeting 35) will as an agenda item consider the observed rate of IPv6
      portable assignments and potential 10-year forecasts of growth of
      portable assignments prepared by the APNIC Secretariat extrapolated on
      the observed data, and by consensus consider the question "Should the
      IPv6 portable assignment criteria revert to requiring multihoming?"
      5.  Pros/Cons
      Advantages: - 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
           - This change would align APNIC with the policies of all other RIRs
              on portable assignments
      Disadvantages: - 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.
      [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,