[sig-policy] Final Comment Period for prop-121: Updating "Initial IPv6 alloca tion" policy

  • To: "sig-policy" <sig-policy@apnic.net>
  • Subject: [sig-policy] Final Comment Period for prop-121: Updating "Initial IPv6 alloca tion" policy
  • From: "chku" <chku@twnic.net.tw>
  • Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2017 15:51:27 +0800 (CST)
  • Delivered-to: sig-policy@clove.apnic.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: <https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy>, <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=subscribe>
  • List-unsubscribe: <https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/options/sig-policy>, <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=unsubscribe>
  • Reply-to: chku <chku@twnic.net.tw>

    • Dear colleagues
      
      Version 1 of prop-121: Updating "Initial IPv6 allocation" policy,
      reached consensus at the APNIC 44 Open Policy Meeting and later at the
      APNIC Member Meeting (AMM).
      
      This proposal will now move to the next step in the APNIC Policy
      Development Process and is being returned to the Policy SIG mailing list
      for the final Comment Period.
      
          - Deadline for comments:  23:59 (UTC +10) Wednesday, 18 October 2017
      
      Proposal details, including the full text of the proposal, history, and
      links to previous versions are available at:
      
          https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/proposals/prop-121/
      
      Regards
      
      Sumon, Ching-Heng, Bertrand
      Policy SIG Chairs
      
      
      
      ------------------------------------------------------------------------
      
      prop-121-v001: Updating "Initial IPv6 allocation" policy
      
      ------------------------------------------------------------------------
      
      Proposer:       Jordi Palet Martinez 
                      jordi.palet@consulintel.es
      
      Problem Statement
      -----------------
      
      The actual policy text (9.2.2. Account holders without existing IPv4
      space) is assuming that an LIR will have more than 200 customers over a
      period of 2 years, or it is already an IPv4 LIR.
      
      However, it is a perfectly valid possibility to have small LIRs, which
      may be never will have 200 customers, for example they may have a dozen
      of big enterprise customers, or they may be a new LIR, not having any
      IPv4 addresses (we all know the run-out problem) or may choose to use a
      limited number of IPv4 addresses from their upstream providers, because
      they don't intend to provide IPv4 services.
      
      It is also possible that the LIR is planning for a longer term than just
      2 years, for example a government with a national network which may take
      a longer period to deploy, connecting all kind of institutions at
      different levels (ministries, schools, health centres, municipalities,
      other public institutions, etc.).
      
      
      Objective of policy change
      --------------------------
      
      To make sure that the policy is aligned with a wider set of possible
      IPv6 deployment cases, including those indicated in the previous section
      and facilitate the justification of the allocation/assignment size if a
      bigger address block (versus the default one) is requested.
      
      
      Situation in other regions
      --------------------------
      This situation, concretely in the case of big initial IPv6 allocations
      to governments, has already occurred in RIPE, and the policy was updated
      to be able to make those allocations. In some cases, a few governments
      got delayed their deployments several years because the lack of an
      appropriate policy covering their case.
      
      
      Proposed policy solution
      ------------------------
      
      Change some of the actual text as follows.
      
      Actual text:
      
      9.2.2. Account holders without existing IPv4 space
      
      To qualify for an initial allocation of IPv6 address space, an
      organization must:
      
      1.   Be an LIR 
      2.   Not be an end site 
      3.   Plan to provide IPv6 connectivity to organizations to which it
           will make assignments.
      4.   Meet one of the two following criteria:
      
       - Have a plan for making at least 200 assignments to other
         organizations within two years, or 
      
       - Be an existing LIR with IPv4 allocations from APNIC or an NIR, which
       will make IPv6 assignments or sub-allocations to other organizations 
       and announce the allocation in the inter- domain routing system within 
       two years.
      
      Private networks (those not connected to the public Internet) may also
      be eligible for an IPv6 address space allocation provided they meet
      equivalent criteria to those listed above.
      
      
      New text:
      
      9.2.2. Account holders without existing IPv4 space
      
      To qualify for an initial allocation of IPv6 address space, an
      organization must:
      
      1.   Be an LIR 
      2.   Not be an end site 
      3.   Plan, within two years, to provide IPv6 connectivity to other
           organizations/end-users to which it will make assignments.
      
      The allocation size, in case an address block bigger than the default
      one (as indicated in 9.2.1.) is requested, will be based on the number
      of users, the extent of the organisation's infrastructure, the
      hierarchical and geographical structuring of the organisation, the
      segmentation of infrastructure for security and the planned longevity of
      the allocation.
      
      Private networks (those not connected to the public Internet) may also
      be eligible for an IPv6 address space allocation provided they meet
      equivalent criteria to those listed above.
      
      Advantages of the proposal
      --------------------------
      
      Fulfilling the objective above indicated, so allowing a more realistic
      alignment of the policy text with market reality under the IPv4
      exhaustion situation.
      
      Disadvantages of the proposal
      -----------------------------
      Possible abuse of the policy, which may be done equally creating new
      LIRs, and it is expected that the evaluation process of a request from
      APNIC will avoid it.
      
      
      Impact on resource holders 
      --------------------------
      None.
      
      
      References
      ----------
      Links to the RIPE and LACNIC texts on request.