Dear SIG members

The following proposal "IPv6 portable assignment for end user organisations" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review. It will be presented at the Policy SIG at APNIC 22 in Kaohsiung, Taiwan, 4-8 September 2006. Please feel free to review and comment on the proposal on the mailing list before the meeting.

The proposal's history can be found at:

http://www.apnic.net/docs/policy/proposals/prop-034-v001.html

Please feel free to submit your own policy proposal for discussion at APNIC 22.

Regards

Kenny Huang Policy SIG huangk@alum.sinica.edu

________________________________________________________________________

prop-034-v001: IPv6 portable assignment for end user organisations ________________________________________________________________________

Author: Jordi Palet Martinez, Consulintel

Version: 1

Date: 29 May 2006

SIG: Policy

Introduction ------------

This policy allows end user organisations that multihome, plan to multihome or require a portable IPv6 assignment for other administrative/technical reasons, to actually receive it.

Summary of current problem -------------------------- In IPv4 address space, end user organisations that currently multihome, plan to multihome or have a similar need for a portable block, can

request a portable IPv4 assignment from APNIC if they meet the IPv4 multihoming criteria. However, there is no equivalent policy for an end user organisation wishing to multihome using IPv6 addresses.

Portable IPv6 assignments are already available to organisations that meet the IXP or critical infrastructure criteria.

Situation in other RIRs ----------------------- All the RIRs are currently discussing a similar proposal.

Details of your proposal ------------------------

Criteria for portable IPv6 assignments:

To qualify for a portable assignment, the organisation:

- must not be an IPv6 Local Internet Registry (LIR); and, - must qualify for an IPv4 portable assignment from APNIC under current IPv4 policies. This applies whether or not the organisation holds IPv4 portable assignment.

Initial assignment size:

The minimum size of the assignment is /32. However, a larger assignment can be provided if duly documented and justified.

Subsequent assignment size:

Whenever possible, further assignments will be made from adjacent address blocks, but only if duly documented and justified.

Assignment 'super block':

Assignments will be made from a separate 'super block' to allow LIRs to filter them, if required.

Lifetime of policy:

This policy is an interim solution until an alternative technical solution to multihoming in IPv6 can be developed by the community. After the technical community develops an alternative and deployable solution to multihoming in IPv6, this portable IPv6 assignment policy for multihomed organisations would expire.

Expiry of assignments:

Because of the probable medium to long-term consequences of this policy on routing tables, any assignments made under this proposed policy should be reclaimed by APNIC three years after a viable alternative solution to multihoming in IPv6 is developed.

End user organisations that wish to avoid renumbering out of the assigned IPv6 prefix would be able to opt to become an LIR, and, if they qualify, receive an allocation that includes the same prefix the organisation was originally assigned.

Advantages and disadvantages of adopting the proposed policy ------------------------------------------------------------

Advantages:

In IPv4, there are organisations that qualify for a portable assignments, or that could opt to become an LIR. This may be because they need either to be multihomed or have other administrative or technical reasons for needing a portable address block.

This is currently not the case for IPv6, and is perceived as a clear barrier for deployment of IPv6 in some organisations. This policy proposal addresses that barrier by means of providing a direct assignment from APNIC.

Any organisation receiving such an assignment would not be allowed to make further assignments to other external organisations, but instead only to assign subnets internally within their own facilities.

Assigning a /32 would make those blocks behave as other regular LIR allocated ones and follow generally accepted routing filtering practices. At the same time, the blocks would be identifiable as belonging to a special 'super block'. This would also allow organisations to become an LIR and avoid the need for renumbering.

With this policy, we avoid the unfair situation among different regions, and meet the needs of any organisation that required portable address space. Organisations with a portable assignment will be in an equal position once the community agrees with a long-term technical solution and will have to either move to this new solution or become an LIR, if they qualify. Newcomers will also be in the same position. Some organisations will not opt for portable assignments under this policy because they do not need it. This would avoid placing them in an unfair situation.

Those that do not believe in possible alternative solutions, but who prefer to go for a permanent portable assignment policy, have no valid reasons to oppose this proposal, as the 'sunset period' should only be in effect once a suitable solution had been agreed. This proposal should not interfere with their plans.

Some organisations may qualify to become an LIR now, and avoid using this temporary assignment. However if their only reason to become an LIR is to get a portable assignment, then it may a better control for the routing table size in the long-term, if they use the option offered by this proposal. This would be fairer to the wider Internet community.

The 'temporary' nature of this assignment must be considered long-term, as we may expect alternative solutions to be available in around three to four years. This takes no account of a transition period. Therefore, asking for a change after six or seven years should be acceptable to all.

Disadvantages:

The possible effect of this proposal is the growth of global routing tables to levels that, together with the existing and forecast IPv4 routing entries, could create significant issues for operators unless vendors can provide products that address such issues. Even if such technical solutions were found, the proposal could still have a major impact on the cost and/or depreciation period for infrastructure investments.

For this reason, this proposal comes with a fixed 'sunset' period, dependant upon the date when an alternative technically viable solution is available and accepted by the Internet community.

A temporary /32 assignment should not be seen as a waste of address space. It would bring with it the advantage of removing the needs for new special filters and avoiding renumbering to those that could become LIRs.

Effect on APNIC members -----------------------

N/A

Effect on NIRs --------------

N/A

Acknowledgments ---------------

I would like to acknowledge input received for the first version of this proposal from Marcelo Bagnulo and Lea Roberts.