On Thursday, March 8, 2012, Randy Whitney <randy.whitney at verizon dot com> wrote: > I support this version of the proposal, which removes the controversial
> 4.E.e Sunset Clause from the text, while leaving the 4.E.d Reporting > requirement. > > Best Regards, > Randy. > > On 3/6/2012 8:20 PM, Masato Yamanishi wrote: >> Dear SIG members
>> >> # 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 > 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
>>