[sig-policy] Prop-101 - 8 week final comment period has ended

  • To: "sig-policy at apnic dot net SIG List" <sig-policy at apnic dot net>
  • Subject: [sig-policy] Prop-101 - 8 week final comment period has ended
  • From: Skeeve Stevens <skeeve at eintellego dot net>
  • Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2012 01:35:43 +1100
  • 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/options/sig-policy>, <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=unsubscribe>
    • ___________________________________________________________________


      prop-101: Removing multihoming requirement for IPv6 portable assignments

      _____________________________________________________________________


      Dear colleagues

      The eight-week final comment period for the proposal 'Removing
      multihoming requirement for IPv6 portable assignments' has ended.

      During the comment period there were no objections raised to the
      proposal. The Chairs therefore deem that consensus has been maintained
      on the proposal.

      We formally request that the APNIC Executive Council endorse this
      proposal.

      For a detailed history of this proposal see:

                http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-101

      Regards

      APNIC Policy SIG Chairs

      Andy, Masato and Skeeve



      ------------------------------------------------------------------------

      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



      Skeeve Stevens, CEO - eintellego Pty Ltd
      The Experts Who The Experts Call
      Juniper - Cisco – IBM - Brocade - Cloud
      -----
      Check out our Juniper promotion website for Oct/Nov!  eintellego.mx
      Free Apple products during this promotion!!!