[sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal ] prop-112: On demand expansion of IPv

    • To: sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net
    • Subject: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal ] prop-112: On demand expansion of IPv6 address allocation size in legacy IPv6 space
    • From: Masato Yamanishi <myamanis at gmail dot com>
    • Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2015 11:55:42 -0600
    • Delivered-to: sig-policy at mailman dot apnic dot net
    • Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=XFj2au6vNLyweMpj7mnc0ogaS/yPk9E9FtfPW3UUfbI=; b=QN8XEpvbGN3j/mI1g1ZjWgtvgHRqI23sC1eFwAv49lyqizWNe4HFpipeuyi38wkyQ+ CyLy1+mSrNqqzvQxmffv79MFZXYgWRz0Ip0Os/a7bM2GIBUPSDFDMHnEakBwr2h5gsXH GpKlvubEdIKVbbXkn8bdaErD+lDl1lEzYFnjz0MQLgmsh/yDiM/fI0xCl5WFvd7MrVxm HorU7nsUXNmuBG/fG5CsdZLgcZw34tk5YQJ00CpO14gvRhZQ1Xeswe8EQDZ3y7ettuUp whreS9taJd49OURg7CS+hew6Q/dWDOz5X3ncoiWu1a0ycNYK4gPtfrMNxeIEV21rtW1f 7X2A==
    • 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>
      • Dear SIG members

        The proposal "prop-112: On demand expansion of IPv6 address allocation
        size in legacy IPv6 space" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.

        It  will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting at APNIC 39 in Fukuoka,
        Japan on Thursday, 5 March 2015.

        We invite you to review and comment on the proposal on the mailing list
        before the meeting.

        The comment period on the mailing list before an APNIC meeting is an
        important part of the policy development process. We encourage you to
        express your views on the proposal:

             - Do you support or oppose this proposal?
             - Does this proposal solve a problem you are experiencing? If so,
          tell the community about your situation.
             - Do you see any disadvantages in this proposal?
             - Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear?
             - What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more

        Information about this proposal is available at:




        prop-112-v001: On demand expansion of IPv6 address allocation size in
                       legacy IPv6 space

        Proposer:    Tomohiro Fujisaki
                     fujisaki at syce dot net

        1. Problem statement

            IPv6 minimum allocation size to LIRs is defined as /32 in the "IPv6
            address allocation and assignment policy"[1].

            In late 2006, sparse address allocation mechanism has implemented
            to manage APNIC IPv6 address pool. The block `2400:0000::/12' has
            managed with this mechanism.

            Before 2006, /29 was reserved for all /32 allocations by sequential
            allocation method made from those old /23 blocks (Legacy IPv6

            These reserved blocks might be kept unused in the future.

        2. Objective of policy change

            This proposal modifies the eligibility for organizations in the
            legacy IPv6 block to extend their IPv6 address space up to a /29
            (/32 -/29) by request basis.

        3. Situation in other regions

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

        4. Proposed policy solution

            - define 'legacy IPv6 address blocks'

            - Add following text in the policy document:

              for Existing IPv6 address space holders

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

        5. Advantages / Disadvantages


              It is possible to utilize address blocks which is potentially
              unused into the future.


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

        6. Impact on resource holders

              NIRs must implement this policy if it is implemented by APNIC.

        7. References

              [1] IPv6 address allocation and assignment policy