[sig-policy] prop-101 Returned to mailing list and Newversion posted

  • To: <sig-policy at apnic dot net>
  • Subject: [sig-policy] prop-101 Returned to mailing list and Newversion posted
  • From: "Masato Yamanishi" <myamanis at japan-telecom dot com>
  • Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2012 17:20:27 -0800
  • 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>
  • Thread-index: Acz8AHqmHLpl5OzTQo6vbtO/tYiqhg==
    • 
      # I'm sending this notification on behalf of Andy Linton, Policy SIG chair
      
      Version 3 of prop-101 Removing multihoming requirement for IPv6 portable
      assignments, did not reach consensus at the APNIC 33 Policy SIG.
      Therefore, this proposal is being returned to the author
      and the Policy SIG mailing list for further discussion.
      
      The author has submitted a revised proposal, prop-101-v004, for further 
      discussion on the Policy SIG mailing list.
      
      
      Proposal details
      ---------------------
      
      This is 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.
      
      
      Proposal details including the full text of the proposal, history, and
      links to mailing list discussions are available at:
      
              http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-101
      
      Regards
      
      Andy, Skeeve, and Masato
      
      
      
      ------------------------------------------------------------------------
      
      prop-101-v004: 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.
      
      
      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 automatically eligible for a minimum IPv6
           portable assignment if they have previously justified an IPv4
           portable assignment from APNIC.
      
      C.  Requests by organizations that have not previously received an
           IPv4 portable assignment will need to be accompanied by:
      
           (a) a reasonable technical justification indicating why IPv6
               addresses from an ISP or other LIR are unsuitable - examples of
               suitable technical justifications may include (but are not 
      limited to):
      
               (i) Demonstration that the relevant network is statically
                   addressed and of a size or complexity that would make IPv6
                   renumbering operationally impractical within an acceptable
                   business period, together with evidence that dynamic or
                   multiple addressing options are either not available from
                   the relevant ISP or are unsuitable for use by the
                   organization;
      
               (ii) Demonstration that any future renumbering of the relevant
                    network could potentially interfere with services of a
                    critical medical or civic nature;
      
           (b) A detailed plan of intended usage of the proposed address block
              over at least the 12 months following allocation.
      
      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:
      
           (a) 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;
      
           (b) If addressing is required for 2 or more of the organization's
               sites operating distinct and unconnected networks.
      
           Any requests for address blocks larger than the minimum size will
           need to be accompanied by a detailed plan of the intended usage of
           the proposed assignment over at least the following 12 months.
      
      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.
      
      
      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-chair mailing list
      Sig-policy-chair at apnic dot net
      http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy-chair