Keyboard Shortcuts
Thread View
j: Next unread messagek: Previous unread messagej a: Jump to all threadsj l: Jump to MailingList overview
[sig-policy] IPv6 proposals summary and call for discussion
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Dear Colleagues
As mentioned in previous emails, we need to get as much discussion as possible underway before APNIC 31.
There are three proposals directly related to APNIC's IPv6 policy. You can find the current APNIC IPv6 policies documented in the "IPv6 address allocation and assignment policy" at:
http://www.apnic.net/policy/ipv6-address-policy
1. Summary of IPv6 policy amendments - ------------------------------------
prop-083: Alternative criteria for subsequent IPv6 allocations
- Permit current APNIC account holders with networks in multiple locations but without a connecting infrastructure to obtain IPv6 resources for each location.
prop-087: IPv6 address allocation for deployment purposes
- Permit networks using IPv6 deployment protocols to qualify to more than a /32 if they can show: - They are using such a deployment protocol AND - The protocol is documented in a Standards Track RFC
NOTE: This proposal will not be presented for consensus decision making at APNIC 31.
prop-090: Optimizing IPv6 allocation strategies
- Changes how networks qualify for IPv6 allocations, and how APNIC makes IPv6 allocations by: - Replacing the HD ratio (used to calculate rates for additional allocations) with a different formula - Aligning APNIC allocations to nibble boundaries (/36, /32, /28, etc.) - Providing a new calculation for how LIRs should be assigning space to customers and alternative ways of showing sufficient utilization to justify more space
2. Next step: we need YOU! - ---------------------------
Some initial questions to help the community begin discussion on the above proposals are:
- Which proposals would APNIC be able to implement together? - Which proposals would it be difficult for APNIC to implement together? - Do the changes suggested in these proposals reflect issues you have come across when you have deployed IPv6 on your network?
- -Gaurab
On Feb 8, 2011, at 12:03 AM, Gaurab Raj Upadhaya wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Dear Colleagues
As mentioned in previous emails, we need to get as much discussion as possible underway before APNIC 31.
There are three proposals directly related to APNIC's IPv6 policy. You can find the current APNIC IPv6 policies documented in the "IPv6 address allocation and assignment policy" at:
http://www.apnic.net/policy/ipv6-address-policy
- Summary of IPv6 policy amendments
prop-083: Alternative criteria for subsequent IPv6 allocations
- Permit current APNIC account holders with networks in multiple locations but without a connecting infrastructure to obtain IPv6 resources for each location.
I support this policy. In the ARIN region, we already have such a policy which we call "Multiple Discreet Networks". It has worked well there.
prop-087: IPv6 address allocation for deployment purposes
- Permit networks using IPv6 deployment protocols to qualify to more than a /32 if they can show: - They are using such a deployment protocol AND - The protocol is documented in a Standards Track RFC NOTE: This proposal will not be presented for consensus decision making at APNIC 31.
I conditionally support this policy. I would want it to include restrictions that limit the prefix size to no larger than a /24 per organization for this purpose and making such applications temporary in nature.
While I recognize the operational need for 6rd and similar techniques in order to deploy IPv6, I would hate to see such technologies rather than native dual-stack become the mature state of IPv6 deployment.
prop-090: Optimizing IPv6 allocation strategies
- Changes how networks qualify for IPv6 allocations, and how APNIC makes IPv6 allocations by: - Replacing the HD ratio (used to calculate rates for additional allocations) with a different formula - Aligning APNIC allocations to nibble boundaries (/36, /32, /28, etc.) - Providing a new calculation for how LIRs should be assigning space to customers and alternative ways of showing sufficient utilization to justify more space
I support this policy, but, as the author, I may be somewhat biased. ;-)
This is now known as 2011-3 in the ARIN region as well.
It provides for nibble alignment not only at the LIR top level, but, also allows at least one level of aggregation within the LIR to also be aligned on a nibble boundary.
It provides for substantially larger possible allocations to LIRs to improve potential aggregation and to allow for more flexible network planning and deployment.
The anticipated total impact to the IPv6 free pool is negligible.
- Next step: we need YOU!
Some initial questions to help the community begin discussion on the above proposals are:
- Which proposals would APNIC be able to implement together?
I see no conflict between 083 and 090.
I think that 087 could be implemented as well, but, as I said, I'd like to see some restrictions considered in order to prevent this from becoming a default mature consumer IPv6 deployment.
- Which proposals would it be difficult for APNIC to implement together?
No issues observed in these three proposals.
- Do the changes suggested in these proposals reflect issues you have come across when you have deployed IPv6 on your network?
083: Addresses issues I have seen on several networks. 087: Not really, but, it does address issues I am aware of in other networks. 090: Yes and also issues I have seen on several other networks.
Owen
Hi,
On 8 February 2011 19:03, Gaurab Raj Upadhaya gaurab@lahai.com wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Dear Colleagues
As mentioned in previous emails, we need to get as much discussion as possible underway before APNIC 31.
There are three proposals directly related to APNIC's IPv6 policy. You can find the current APNIC IPv6 policies documented in the "IPv6 address allocation and assignment policy" at:
http://www.apnic.net/policy/ipv6-address-policy
- Summary of IPv6 policy amendments
prop-083: Alternative criteria for subsequent IPv6 allocations
- Permit current APNIC account holders with networks in multiple locations but without a connecting infrastructure to obtain IPv6 resources for each location.
I support this proposal.
prop-087: IPv6 address allocation for deployment purposes
- Permit networks using IPv6 deployment protocols to qualify to more than a /32 if they can show: - They are using such a deployment protocol AND - The protocol is documented in a Standards Track RFC NOTE: This proposal will not be presented for consensus decision making at APNIC 31.
No definite opinion.
prop-090: Optimizing IPv6 allocation strategies
- Changes how networks qualify for IPv6 allocations, and how APNIC makes IPv6 allocations by: - Replacing the HD ratio (used to calculate rates for additional allocations) with a different formula - Aligning APNIC allocations to nibble boundaries (/36, /32, /28, etc.) - Providing a new calculation for how LIRs should be assigning space to customers and alternative ways of showing sufficient utilization to justify more space
I support this proposal.
- Next step: we need YOU!
Some initial questions to help the community begin discussion on the above proposals are:
- Which proposals would APNIC be able to implement together?
- Which proposals would it be difficult for APNIC to implement together?
I think these proposals can all be implemented together. But perhaps an individual LIR request will not invoke prop-087 criteria and *also* either of the other two criteria.
- Do the changes suggested in these proposals reflect issues you have come across when you have deployed IPv6 on your network?
prop-083: Alternative criteria for subsequent IPv6 allocations Yes. Monash has networks in several countries without connecting infrastructure.
prop-090: Optimizing IPv6 allocation strategies Yes. The current Monash IPv6 address plan uses variable size organisational supernet masks e.g. a few large divisions can have networks at 256 places, several medium size divisions at 64 places, lots of small divisions at 16 places, and the rest only at one place. It is very hard to create e.g. correct variable length non-nibble aligned masks for ACLs; and later on to look at them and quickly see if they are correct or not.
Thanks, John
I think prop-083 and prop-087 are in many ways talking about the same thing. Our current view of network size is still influenced strongly by an IPv4 of the world and we see a /32 as so huge that for most entities they'll never need anything else. And to a large degree that's true.
But there are situations where people will need more than one /32 and that should be possible. So I'd like to see us come up with a policy that made it clear that larger or multiple delegations of address space can be made for clear, well documented, technically sound reasons.
We could then have the cases that these two proposals cite listed in an Appendix to the policy. New valid reasons could be added if/when needed.
The policy should enshrine the principles only.
So if we could come up with a way to unify these proposals I'd be happy to support that but I won't reject these if we can't manage that.
Looking at prop-090 I have no issue with the change in calculation. I don't believe there's a "correct solution" to this. I note that the percentages quoted in Section 2.1 and Section 5 don't agree with each other but if either of the sets of numbers is in the right ball park then it doesn't matter.
I like the idea of the nibble alignment in Section 4.3.
I'm less keen on the allocation criteria in Section 4.5. Sections 4.5.2 and 4.5.3 as written prevent any new organisation who isn't an ISP from obtaining IPv6 address space for their own use.
So a new university, government department or company who may have many hundreds or thousands of users can't multihome using IPv6 because they don't plan to give out address space to other organisations?
We had criteria like these in place for IPv4 because we've recognised for many years it was a scarce resource and people have fabricated requests to the RIRs to justify their wants. Let's have delegation criteria but not these ones.
I'm also doubtful about Section 4.8. Any policy that says a recipient needs to renumber within 5 years will never work in practice. What happens if they don't renumber? What sanctions will APNIC be able to apply?
On Feb 8, 2011, at 11:07 AM, Andy Linton wrote:
I think prop-083 and prop-087 are in many ways talking about the same thing. Our current view of network size is still influenced strongly by an IPv4 of the world and we see a /32 as so huge that for most entities they'll never need anything else. And to a large degree that's true.
They aren't actually.
Prop 083 is about providers that have multiple locations that aren't connected by an interior backbone.
Prop 087 is about technologies like 6rd.
Neither one of them has much to do with the /32 perception problem that prop 090 attempts to address.
But there are situations where people will need more than one /32 and that should be possible. So I'd like to see us come up with a policy that made it clear that larger or multiple delegations of address space can be made for clear, well documented, technically sound reasons.
We could then have the cases that these two proposals cite listed in an Appendix to the policy. New valid reasons could be added if/when needed.
I wouldn't have a problem with that approach.
The policy should enshrine the principles only.
So if we could come up with a way to unify these proposals I'd be happy to support that but I won't reject these if we can't manage that.
Looking at prop-090 I have no issue with the change in calculation. I don't believe there's a "correct solution" to this. I note that the percentages quoted in Section 2.1 and Section 5 don't agree with each other but if either of the sets of numbers is in the right ball park then it doesn't matter.
Good catch... That's a typo in section 5. 99.54% is the correct number.
I like the idea of the nibble alignment in Section 4.3.
I'm less keen on the allocation criteria in Section 4.5. Sections 4.5.2 and 4.5.3 as written prevent any new organisation who isn't an ISP from obtaining IPv6 address space for their own use.
That's certainly not the intent. The intent is not to change the end-user policy as it exists today and only to modify the LIR/ISP policy. This may be an unintended side effect of my limited familiarity with the APNIC policy environment.
Can you suggest text that would rectify this issue?
So a new university, government department or company who may have many hundreds or thousands of users can't multihome using IPv6 because they don't plan to give out address space to other organisations?
We had criteria like these in place for IPv4 because we've recognised for many years it was a scarce resource and people have fabricated requests to the RIRs to justify their wants. Let's have delegation criteria but not these ones.
Agreed.
I'm also doubtful about Section 4.8. Any policy that says a recipient needs to renumber within 5 years will never work in practice. What happens if they don't renumber? What sanctions will APNIC be able to apply?
I expect the number of organizations affected by this to be relatively small. At the end of 5 years, APNIC can revoke the original block, terminate its ip6.arpa records and whois entries. Eventually, if APNIC so chose, they could allocate the block to another requestor.
Since this trade-in policy is intended only for LIR/ISP organizations that are very early in their rollout and want to start over with the larger block, returning the original smaller block shouldn't be a sticking point.
On the other hand, if they're actually using a significant portion of the smaller block, then, they might qualify for subsequent allocation under the other sections of this policy which do not require return.
Does that address your concern?
Owen
On 8/02/11 12:04 , Owen DeLong wrote:
On Feb 8, 2011, at 11:07 AM, Andy Linton wrote:
I think prop-083 and prop-087 are in many ways talking about the same thing. Our current view of network size is still influenced strongly by an IPv4 of the world and we see a /32 as so huge that for most entities they'll never need anything else. And to a large degree that's true.
They aren't actually.
Prop 083 is about providers that have multiple locations that aren't connected by an interior backbone.
I'd prefer to use the term organisations rather than providers. I don't think this proposal is limited to providers - they may be more likely to use it.
Prop 087 is about technologies like 6rd.
It seems I didn't make myself clear on this - when I said the same thing I meant that that they're both talking about obtaining blocks larger than some standard amount (/32) for particular network architecture or technical reasons.
Neither one of them has much to do with the /32 perception problem that prop 090 attempts to address.
I agree - I wasn't trying to link them other than that they're about IPv6.
I'm less keen on the allocation criteria in Section 4.5. Sections 4.5.2 and 4.5.3 as written prevent any new organisation who isn't an ISP from obtaining IPv6 address space for their own use.
That's certainly not the intent. The intent is not to change the end-user policy as it exists today and only to modify the LIR/ISP policy. This may be an unintended side effect of my limited familiarity with the APNIC policy environment.
Can you suggest text that would rectify this issue?
Happy to try and happy to work with others who have ideas. I'm currently on a train in England after a flight from LA and I'm going to think about the rest of this when I'm slightly less jetlagged.
andy
On Feb 9, 2011, at 5:59 AM, Andy Linton wrote:
On 8/02/11 12:04 , Owen DeLong wrote:
On Feb 8, 2011, at 11:07 AM, Andy Linton wrote:
I think prop-083 and prop-087 are in many ways talking about the same thing. Our current view of network size is still influenced strongly by an IPv4 of the world and we see a /32 as so huge that for most entities they'll never need anything else. And to a large degree that's true.
They aren't actually.
Prop 083 is about providers that have multiple locations that aren't connected by an interior backbone.
I'd prefer to use the term organisations rather than providers. I don't think this proposal is limited to providers - they may be more likely to use it.
Fair point. Your choice of words better conveys my intent.
Prop 087 is about technologies like 6rd.
It seems I didn't make myself clear on this - when I said the same thing I meant that that they're both talking about obtaining blocks larger than some standard amount (/32) for particular network architecture or technical reasons.
Hmmm... I suppose on a very general level, yes. However I think they seek to solve significantly different problems and that attempting to apply one generic solution to both problems may be problematic or at least suboptimal.
Neither one of them has much to do with the /32 perception problem that prop 090 attempts to address.
I agree - I wasn't trying to link them other than that they're about IPv6.
Fair enough.
I'm less keen on the allocation criteria in Section 4.5. Sections 4.5.2 and 4.5.3 as written prevent any new organisation who isn't an ISP from obtaining IPv6 address space for their own use.
That's certainly not the intent. The intent is not to change the end-user policy as it exists today and only to modify the LIR/ISP policy. This may be an unintended side effect of my limited familiarity with the APNIC policy environment.
Can you suggest text that would rectify this issue?
Happy to try and happy to work with others who have ideas. I'm currently on a train in England after a flight from LA and I'm going to think about the rest of this when I'm slightly less jetlagged.
OK... I look forward to your comments. Enjoy your travels.
Owen
Andy,
I have previously supported prop-090.
I didn't share your concerns relating to section 4.5 because it talks about an "allocation", and believed that term only applies to LIRs / ISPs. I understood that a university, government department (like mine, for example) or company wanting lots of multi-homed IPv6 would be getting an "assignment", not an "allocation", from APNIC. Hence the provisions you're concerned about would not apply.
I hope I'm still right
Regards
Mike
-----Original Message----- From: sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net [mailto:sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net] On Behalf Of Andy Linton Sent: Wednesday, 9 February 2011 8:07 a.m. To: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net Subject: Re: [sig-policy] IPv6 proposals summary and call for discussion
[snip]
I'm less keen on the allocation criteria in Section 4.5. Sections 4.5.2 and 4.5.3 as written prevent any new organisation who isn't an ISP from obtaining IPv6 address space for their own use.
So a new university, government department or company who may have many hundreds or thousands of users can't multihome using IPv6 because they don't plan to give out address space to other organisations?
We had criteria like these in place for IPv4 because we've recognised for many years it was a scarce resource and people have fabricated requests to the RIRs to justify their wants. Let's have delegation criteria but not these ones.
[snip] The information contained in this Internet Email message is intended for the addressee only and may contain privileged information, but not necessarily the official views or opinions of the New Zealand Defence Force. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, disclose, copy or distribute this message or the information in it.
If you have received this message in error, please Email or telephone the sender immediately.
Activity Summary
- 4378 days inactive
- 4378 days old
- sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
- 5 participants
- 7 comments
Participants (5)
-
Andy Linton
-
Gaurab Raj Upadhaya
-
HENDERSON MIKE, MR
-
John Mann (ITS)
-
Owen DeLong