Re: [sig-policy] New Version: prop-101-v003: Removing multihoming requir
I have no issue with the reporting requirements suggested in this version 003, but like Dean, I disagree strongly with the sunset clause (e)
Regards
Mike
> -----Original Message-----
> From: sig-policy-bounces at lists dot apnic dot net
> [mailto:sig-policy-bounces at lists dot apnic dot net] On Behalf Of Dean
> Pemberton
> Sent: Thursday, 1 March 2012 22:08
> To: sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net
> Subject: Re: [sig-policy] New Version: prop-101-v003:
> Removing multihoming requirement for IPv6 portable assignments
>
> I strongly supported version 002 of this proposal.
>
> I agree with point (d) and I would support with a proposal
> which contained it.
> I disagree with point (e) as it stands and I would not
> support with any policy which contained a similar clause.
>
> I believe that placing a sunset clause on this policy sets a
> bad precedent. As mentioned by the APNIC secretariat, there
> has been no example of this being done on any previous proposal.
>
> As mentioned by David during the meeting, there is nothing to
> stop any other proposal being raised which would repeal
> prop-101 if a situation arose.
>
> As such I do not support version 003 of prop-101.
>
>
> Regards,
> Dean
>
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 9:54 PM, Andy Linton <asjl at lpnz dot org> wrote:
> > Dear SIG members
> >
> > 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:
> >
> > http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Andy, Skeeve, and Masato
> >
> >
> >
> >
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > -------
> >
> > prop-101-v003: Removing multihoming requirement for IPv6 portable
> > assignments
> >
> >
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > -------
> >
> >
> >
> > 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
> > multihomed.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> >
> > 4Details
> > ---------------
> >
> > 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 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.
> >
> >
> > (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
> > networks
> >
> > - 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.
> >
> >
> > References:
> > -----------
> >
> > [1] Section 5.9.1, IPv6 address allocation and assignment policy,
> > http://www.apnic.net/policy/ipv6-address-policy#5.9
> > [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,
> > http://www.apnic.net/policy/ipv6-address-policy#5.3
> > * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource
> management policy
> > * _______________________________________________
> > sig-policy mailing list
> > sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net
> > http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
>
>
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Dean
> * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management
> policy *
> _______________________________________________
> sig-policy mailing list
> sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net
> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
>
The information contained in this Internet Email message is intended
for the addressee only and may contain privileged information, but not
necessarily the official views or opinions of the New Zealand Defence Force.
If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, disclose, copy or
distribute this message or the information in it.
If you have received this message in error, please Email or telephone
the sender immediately.