Info & FAQ |  Resource services |  Training |  Meetings |  Membership |  Documents |  Whois & Search |  Internet community

You're here:  Home  Mailing Lists sig-policy 

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[sig-policy] Fwd: [Sig-policy-chair] DRAFT### Returned to SIG: prop-111: Request-based expansion of IPv6 default allocation size

Dear colleagues

Version 2 of prop-111: Request-based expansion of IPv6 default
allocation size, did not reach consensus at the APNIC 37 Policy SIG.
Therefore, this proposal is being returned to the author and the Policy
SIG mailing list for further discussion.

Proposal details

This proposal modifies the eligibility for an organization to receive an
initial IPv6 allocation up to a /29 by request basis.

Proposal details including the full text of the proposal, history, and
links to mailing list discussions are available at:

ÂÂÂÂÂÂ http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-111


Andy and Masato

prop-111-v002 Request-based expansion of IPv6 default allocation size

Author:ÂÂÂÂÂÂ Tomohiro Fujisaki
ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ fujisaki@syce.net

1. Problem statement

ÂÂ IPv6 minimum allocation size to LIRs is defined as /32 in the "IPv6
ÂÂ address allocation and assignment policy"[1]. It's better to
ÂÂ expand this minimum allocation size up to /29 (/32 - /29) since:

ÂÂ - Before sparse allocation mechanism implemented in late 2006, /29
ÂÂÂÂ was reserved for all /32 allocations by sequential allocation
ÂÂÂÂ method made from those old /23 blocks. These reserved blocks
ÂÂÂÂ might be kept unused in the future.

ÂÂ - Sparse allocation mechanism was implemented in late 2006 with a
ÂÂÂÂ /12 allocation from the IANA. Under the sparse allocation
ÂÂÂÂ mechanism, there is no reservation size defined, and the space
ÂÂÂÂ between allocations continues to change, depending on the
ÂÂÂÂ remaining free pool available in APNIC.

ÂÂÂÂ However, the "APNIC guidelines for IPv6 allocation and
ÂÂÂÂ assignment requests"[2] stated:

ÂÂÂÂ "In accordance with APNIC's "IPv6 address allocation and
ÂÂÂÂ assignment policy", where possible, subsequent delegations to the
ÂÂÂÂ same resource holder are made from an adjacent address block by
ÂÂÂÂ growing the delegation into the free space remaining, unless
ÂÂÂÂ disaggregated ranges are requested for multiple discrete
ÂÂÂÂ networks."

ÂÂÂÂ So, it is expected that allocation up to /29 is guaranteed for
ÂÂÂÂ consistency with allocations above. Based on the current
ÂÂÂÂ situation, contiguous allocation of /29 can still be accommodated
ÂÂÂÂ even under the sparse allocation mechanism (Current /32
ÂÂÂÂ allocations from the /12 block can grow up to /24 at this stage).

ÂÂ - For traffic control purpose, some LIRs announce address blocks
ÂÂÂÂ longer than /32 (e.g. /35). However, some ISPs may set filters to
ÂÂÂÂ block address size longer than /32 since some filtering
ÂÂÂÂ guidelines recommend to filter longer prefix than /32([3][4]). If
ÂÂÂÂ LIRs have multiple /32, they can announce these blocks and its
ÂÂÂÂ reachability will be better than longer prefix.

ÂÂ - If an LIR needs address blocks larger than /32, LIRs may tend to
ÂÂÂÂ announce as a single prefix if a /29 is allocated initially at
ÂÂÂÂ once. i.e., total number of announced prefixes in case 1 may be
ÂÂÂÂ smaller than in case 2.

ÂÂÂÂ case 1:
ÂÂÂÂ The LIR obtains /29 at the beginning of IPv6 network construction.

ÂÂÂÂ case 2:
ÂÂÂÂ The LIR obtains /32, and /31, /30 additionally with the subsequent
ÂÂÂÂ allocation mechanism.

Â2. Objective of policy change
ÂÂ This proposal modifies the eligibility for an organization to
ÂÂ receive an initial IPv6 allocation up to a /29 (/32 - /29) by
ÂÂ request basis.

3. Situation in other regions

ÂÂ The policy "Extension of IPv6 /32 to /29 on a per-allocation vs
ÂÂ per-LIR basis" is adopted in RIPE-NCC and LIRs in RIPE region can get
ÂÂ up to /29 by default.

4. Proposed policy solution

ÂÂ - Change the text to "5.2.2 Minimum initial allocation size" of
ÂÂÂÂ current policy document as below:

ÂÂÂÂ Organizations that meet the initial allocation criteria are
ÂÂÂÂ eligible to receive an initial allocation of /32. For allocations
ÂÂÂÂ up to /29 no additional documentation is necessary.

ÂÂ - Add following text in the policy document:

ÂÂÂÂ for Existing IPv6 address space holders

ÂÂÂÂ LIRs that hold one or more IPv6 allocations are able to request
ÂÂÂÂ extension of each of these allocations up to a /29 without meeting
ÂÂÂÂ the utilization rate for subsequent allocation and providing
ÂÂÂÂ further documentation.

5. Explain the advantages of the proposal
ÂÂ - It is possible to utilize address blocks which is potentially
ÂÂÂÂ unused into the future.
ÂÂ - It will be possible for LIRs to control traffic easier.
ÂÂ - Organizations can design their IPv6 networks more flexibly.

6. Explain the disadvantages of the proposal
ÂÂ Some people may argue this will lead to inefficient utilization of
ÂÂ IPv6 space since LIRs can obtain huge address size unnecessarily.
ÂÂ However, this will not happen because larger address size needs
ÂÂ higher cost to maintain that address block.

7. Impact on resource holders
ÂÂ NIRs must implement this policy if it is implemented by APNIC.

8. References
[1] IPv6 address allocation and assignment policy

[2] APNIC guidelines for IPv6 allocation and assignment requests

[3] Packet Filter and Route Filter Recommendation for IPv6 at xSP routers

[4] IPv6 BGP filter recommendations