[sig-policy] prop-131-v001: Editorial changes in IPv6 Policy

  • To: Policy SIG <sig-policy@apnic.net>
  • Subject: [sig-policy] prop-131-v001: Editorial changes in IPv6 Policy
  • From: Sumon Ahmed Sabir <sasabir@gmail.com>
  • Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2019 15:59:08 +0600
  • Delivered-to: sig-policy@clove.apnic.net
  • Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=1U1THgPXE+tW9TT4cGTM2VY505lN9SrdxAOG43hxM/U=; b=Y4uYl4LYfOzOxRbYlSSvGf6l1W4QYz/2yFe9zK95Jw/T9rR1FLkWpFTO5bPNFEeNP6 8bsPDyyEhjjdb3jmCS2TfxDiTN8rMpAwLUKInjrq6OCGouOR6pqckBUUBxos1qE7ZhiU nMUeGrdtjO63sokxzmPssg+MzDAFJ8LPvcI/McsgZLO2lc33jRTN95AuFxJLkN/Psua/ cwNUj/gwHjLnNaRr4FHXEbSRB+ZmFCWG/u1T5whCRlr7OMJvrxldbKWyhvMGqZhJhyhU yZg8+ajwCJKVdBKIP/bRDkTCD6duIFMJRot0DpPsUBqmpRLUWigEfhsuqLwBsrp1OWvZ deug==
  • 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>


    • Dear SIG members,

      The proposal "prop-131-v001: Editorial changes in IPv6 Policy" has been 
      sent to
      the Policy SIG for review.

      It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting at APNIC 48 in
      Chiang Mai, Thailand on Thursday, 12 September 2019.

      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
          effective?

      Information about this proposal is available at:
      http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-131

      Regards

      Sumon, Bertrand, Ching-Heng
      APNIC Policy SIG Chairs


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

      prop-131-v001: Editorial changes in IPv6 Policy

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

      Proposer: Jordi Palet Martínez
                 jordi.palet@theipv6company.com


      1. Problem Statement
      --------------------

      This proposal suggests multiple (mainly) editorial changes in the IPv6 
      Policy.
      The intent is to remove non-necessary text, and simplify the policy.

      Section 5.2.4.2. is reworded to mention a RIPE BCOP, and 5.2.4.4. is 
      removed,
      as it is something obvious that operators need to assign some space for 
      different
      parts of their own infrastructure.

      Section 5.2.4.3. explicitly states that it was drafted at a time when 
      there was no
      experience with IPv6 deployment, which is this is longer the case, it 
      does not make
      sense to have NIR/RIR to evaluate each instance where an LIR has an End 
      User whose
      end site(s) requires a shorter prefix than a /48.

      Finally, section 10.1.4.1. is reworded, taking advantage of some of the 
      editorial
      changes in the precedent sections, so to avoid duplicating text.



      2. Objective of policy change
      -----------------------------

      Fulfil the above indicated edits.


      3. Situation in other regions
      -----------------------------

      A similar proposal has been submitted to RIPE.


      4. Proposed policy solution
      ---------------------------

      Current Text
      5.2.4.2. Assignment address space size

      ...

      End-users are assigned an end site assignment from their LIR or ISP. The 
      exact size of
      the assignment is a local decision for the LIR or ISP to make, using a 
      minimum value of
      a /64 (when only one subnet is anticipated for the end site) up to the 
      normal maximum of
      /48, except in cases of extra large end sites where a larger assignment 
      can be justified.

      ...


      New Text
      5.2.4.2. Assignment address space size

      ...

      End Users are assigned an end site assignment from their LIR or ISP. The 
      size of the
      assignment is a local decision for the LIR or ISP to make, using a value 
      of "n" x /64.
      BCOP RIPE690 Section 4.2, provides guidelines about this.

      ...

      ==================================================

      Current Text
      5.2.4.3. Assignment of multiple /48s to a single end site

      When a single end site requires an additional /48 address block, it must 
      request the
      assignment with documentation or materials that justify the request. 
      Requests for multiple
      or additional /48s will be processed and reviewed (i.e., evaluation of 
      justification) at
      the RIR/NIR level.

      Note: There is no experience at the present time with the assignment of 
      multiple /48s to
      the same end site. Having the RIR review all such assignments is 
      intended to be a temporary
      measure until some experience has been gained and some common policies 
      can be developed.
      In addition, additional work at defining policies in this space will 
      likely be carried out
      in the near future.


      New Text
      5.2.4.3. Assignment of multiple /48s to a single end site

      Assignment larger than /48 (shorter prefix) or additional assignments 
      exceeding a total of
      /48 must be made based on address usage, or because different routing 
      requirements exist
      for additional assignments.

      In case of a review or when making a request for a subsequent 
      allocation, the LIR must
      be able to present documentation justifying the need for assignments 
      shorter than a
      /48 to a single End-Site.

      ====================================================

      Current Text
      5.2.4.4. Assignment to operator's infrastructure

      An organization (ISP/LIR) may assign a /48 per PoP as the service 
      infrastructure of an
      IPv6 service operator. Each assignment to a PoP is regarded as one 
      assignment regardless
      of the number of users using the PoP. A separate assignment can be 
      obtained for the
      in-house operations of the operator.


      New Text
      (removed and following sections renumbered accordingly)

      =====================================================

      Current Text
      10.1.4.1. Initial assignment

      ...

      The minimum assignment made under this policy is a /48. Larger blocks 
      may be delegated in
      circumstances outlined in "APNIC guidelines for IPv6 allocation and 
      assignment requests".

      ...

      New Text
      10.1.4.1. Initial assignment

      The minimum size of the assignment is a /48.
      The considerations of "5.2.4.3. Assignments shorter than a /48 to a 
      single End-Site"
      must be followed if needed.

      ====================================================


      5. Advantages / Disadvantages
      -----------------------------

      Advantages:
      Fulfilling the objectives above indicated.


      Disadvantages:
      None foreseen.


      6. Impact on resource holders
      -----------------------------

      None.


      7. References
      -------------
      AFRINIC and LACNIC don’t have this requirements in their IPv6 policies 
      and recommend an assignment
      size of /48 
      https://www.afrinic.net/policy/manual#Allocations-Assignments-Policies 
      (section 6.5.4.1
      Assignment address space size) https://www.lacnic.net/684/2/lacnic/ 
      (section 4.5.3.1 - Assignment
      address space size)

      ARIN policy requires for larger initial assignments to be reasonably 
      justified with supporting
      documentation, based on the number of sites in an organization’s network 
      and the number of subnets
      needed to support any extra-large sites.
      https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/nrpm/#6-5-4-reassignments-from-lirs-isps