Keyboard Shortcuts
Thread View
j: Next unread messagek: Previous unread messagej a: Jump to all threadsj l: Jump to MailingList overview
Dear SIG members
# I'm sending this notification on behalf of Andy Linton, Policy SIG chair
Version 3 of prop-101 Removing multihoming requirement for IPv6 portable assignments, did not reach consensus at the APNIC 33 Policy SIG. Therefore, this proposal is being returned to the author and the Policy SIG mailing list for further discussion.
The author has submitted a revised proposal, prop-101-v004, for further discussion on the Policy SIG mailing list.
Proposal details ---------------------
This is a proposal to change the "IPv6 address allocation and assignment policy" to allow portable (that is, provider independent or PI) assignments of IPv6 address blocks to be made by APNIC to any organization with due justification and payment of standard fees, removing the current requirement that the requestor is or plans to be multihomed.
Proposal details including the full text of the proposal, history, and links to mailing list discussions are available at:
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-101
Regards
Andy, Skeeve, and Masato
------------------------------------------------------------------------
prop-101-v004: Removing multihoming requirement for IPv6 portable assignments
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Introduction ---------------
This a proposal to change the "IPv6 address allocation and assignment policy" to allow portable (that is, provider independent or PI) assignments of IPv6 address blocks to be made by APNIC to any organization with due justification and payment of standard fees, removing the current requirement that the requestor is or plans to be multihomed.
2. Summary of the current problem ---------------------------------
Current APNIC policy only permits portable assignments of IPv6 addresses to be made to an organization "if it is currently multihomed or plans to be multihomed within three months." [1] This requirement may unnecessarily complicate the implementation of IPv6 in some networks that are large or complex and use static assignment of addresses. It is therefore proposed to remove this requirement.
IPv6 models tend to assume widespread assignment of registered IPv6 addresses to equipment throughout a network; so if provider assigned IPv6 addresses have been used in an organization's network, then any change of ISP would require a renumbering of the entire network. Such renumbering may be feasible if the network is small or dynamically assigned (for example, through use of prefix-delegation), but renumbering a large, statically-assigned network would be a significant operational challenge, and may not be practically possible.
Although it is likely that many large networks would be multihomed, there will be technical or commercial reasons why some will not be; currently those networks cannot obtain portable IPv6 assignments from APNIC, and would need to use assignments from their ISPs, and accept the associated difficulties of future renumbering if they do so. This consideration and complexity could significantly delay IPv6 use by the affected organisations, which is not desirable.
There is a risk that removing the multihoming requirement could cause a significant increase in demand for portable assignments, which in turn could cause the Internet routing tables to grow beyond manageable levels. It is not feasible to quickly generate any realistic model of likely demand increase which would arise from the proposed policy change, but it is argued that any such increase would only be of a scale to produce a manageable impact on global routing, for reasons including:
- Organizations would only be likely to seek portable addressing if they believed it were essential for their operations, as provider assigned IPv6 addressing would be likely to be offered automatically and at no additional cost with their Internet services from their ISP;
- APNIC membership fees would be expected to naturally discourage unnecessary requests, as these would be a far greater cost than that for provider assigned addressing;
- Many or most organizations that require portable addressing will be multihomed, so the demand increase caused by removing the multihomed requirement should be small;
- Only a limited set of an ISP's products is likely to allow customers to use portable assignments if they are singly-homed.
3.Situation in other RIRs -------------------------
APNIC is now the only RIR remaining with an absolute requirement for multihoming for portable address assignments.
AfriNIC: The "Policy for IPv6 ProviderIndependent (PI) Assignment for End-Sites" [2] does not mention any requirement for multihoming;
ARIN: Section 6.5.8 of the "ARIN Number Resource Policy Manual" [3] only identifies multihoming as one of several alternative criteria for direct IPv6 assignment to end-user organizations;
LACNIC: There is no mention of multihoming anywhere in the IPv6 section (Section 4) of the current LACNIC Policy Manual (v1.8 - 07/12/2011) [4].
RIPE: The latest version (RIPE-545 [5]) published in January 2012 of the "IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy" does not mention multihoming, removing the requirement that existed in previous versions of the document.
4.Details ---------
It is proposed that section 5.9.1 of APNIC's "IPv6 address allocation and assignment policy" (apnic-089-v010) is rewritten to remove the absolute multihoming requirement for portable assignments, and to incorporate the following conditions:
A. Portable IPv6 assignments are to be made only to organizations that have either joined APNIC as members or have signed the non-member agreement, under the standard terms & conditions and paying the standard fees applicable for their respective category.
B. An organization will be automatically eligible for a minimum IPv6 portable assignment if they have previously justified an IPv4 portable assignment from APNIC.
C. Requests by organizations that have not previously received an IPv4 portable assignment will need to be accompanied by:
(a) a reasonable technical justification indicating why IPv6 addresses from an ISP or other LIR are unsuitable - examples of suitable technical justifications may include (but are not limited to):
(i) Demonstration that the relevant network is statically addressed and of a size or complexity that would make IPv6 renumbering operationally impractical within an acceptable business period, together with evidence that dynamic or multiple addressing options are either not available from the relevant ISP or are unsuitable for use by the organization;
(ii) Demonstration that any future renumbering of the relevant network could potentially interfere with services of a critical medical or civic nature;
(b) A detailed plan of intended usage of the proposed address block over at least the 12 months following allocation.
D. The minimum IPv6 portable assignment to any organization is to be an address block of /48. A portable assignment of a larger block (that is, a block with a prefix mask less than /48) may be made:
(a) If it is needed to ensure that the HD-ratio for the planned network assignments from the block remains below the applied HD-ratio threshold specified in Section 5.3.1 of the APNIC IPv6 policy [6], or;
(b) If addressing is required for 2 or more of the organization's sites operating distinct and unconnected networks.
Any requests for address blocks larger than the minimum size will need to be accompanied by a detailed plan of the intended usage of the proposed assignment over at least the following 12 months.
E. In order to minimise routing table impacts:
(a) Only one IPv6 address block is to be given to an organization upon an initial request for a portable assignment; subnets of this block may be assigned by the organization to its different sites if needed;
(b) It is recommended that the APNIC Secretariat applies sparse allocation methodologies so that any subsequent requests from an organization for additional portable addressing would be accommodated where possible through a change of prefix mask of a previous assignment (for example, 2001:db8:1000::/48 -> ] 2001:db8:1000::/44), rather than through allocation of a new prefix. An additional prefix should only be allocated where it is not possible to simply change the prefix mask.
(c) Any subsequent request for an additional portable assignment to an organization must be accompanied by information demonstrating:
(i) Why an additional portable assignment is required, and why an assignment from from an ISP or other LIR cannot be used for this purpose instead;
(ii) That the use of previous portable IPv6 allocations generated the minimum possible number of global routing announcements and the maximum aggregation of that block;
(iii) How the additional assignment would be managed to minimise the growth of the global IPv6 routing table.
(d) The APNIC Secretariat will produce reports of the number of portable IPv6 assignments requested, preferably as an automatically-generated daily graph of the number of cumulative IPv6 portable assignments published publically on the APNIC website, or else as regular (at a minimum, quarterly) reports sent to the sig-policy mailing list detailing the incremental assignments of new IPv6 portable assignments made since the last report, plus the cumulative total of IPv6 portable assignments.
5.Pros/Cons -----------
Advantages:
- This proposal would provide access to portable IPv6 addresses for all organizations with valid needs, removing a potential impediment to industry standard IPv6 addressing for large singly-homed networks
- This change would align APNIC with the policies of all other RIRs on portable assignments
Disadvantages:
- There would be a risk of an unmanageably large increase in global IPv6 routing table size and APNIC workload if there were to be a substantial and widespread increase in demand for portable assignments arising from the removal of the multihoming requirement
- But demand is expected to be limited by the requirements specified in section 4 for justifications and APNIC standard fees, as well as other industry factors such as the capability of Internet services to support portable addressing.
6.Effect on APNIC -----------------
The impact of this proposal on the APNIC Secretariat would depend on the increase of demand for portable assignments. Even if demand is eventually large, it is unlikely that there will be an significant change in hostmaster workloads for a long time because of the slow rate of take up of IPv6, and so there should be sufficient time to identify and take steps to modify policies and processes if necessary to manage the increase.
7.Effect on NIRs ----------------
This proposal specifically applies to portable assignments made by APNIC. It would be the choice of each NIR as to whether they would adopt a similar policy.
References: -----------
[1] Section 5.9.1, IPv6 address allocation and assignment policy, http://www.apnic.net/policy/ipv6-address-policy#5.9 [2] http://www.afrinic.net/docs/policies/AFPUB-2007-v6-001.htm [3] https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#six58 [4] http://www.lacnic.net/en/politicas/manual5.html [5] http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-545 [6]Section 5.3.1, IPv6 address allocation and assignment policy, http://www.apnic.net/policy/ipv6-address-policy#5.3
_______________________________________________ Sig-policy-chair mailing list Sig-policy-chair@apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy-chair
I support this version of the proposal, which removes the controversial 4.E.e Sunset Clause from the text, while leaving the 4.E.d Reporting requirement.
Best Regards, Randy.
On 3/6/2012 8:20 PM, Masato Yamanishi wrote:
Dear SIG members
# I'm sending this notification on behalf of Andy Linton, Policy SIG chair
Version 3 of prop-101 Removing multihoming requirement for IPv6 portable assignments, did not reach consensus at the APNIC 33 Policy SIG. Therefore, this proposal is being returned to the author and the Policy SIG mailing list for further discussion.
The author has submitted a revised proposal, prop-101-v004, for further discussion on the Policy SIG mailing list.
Proposal details
This is a proposal to change the "IPv6 address allocation and assignment policy" to allow portable (that is, provider independent or PI) assignments of IPv6 address blocks to be made by APNIC to any organization with due justification and payment of standard fees, removing the current requirement that the requestor is or plans to be multihomed.
Proposal details including the full text of the proposal, history, and links to mailing list discussions are available at:
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-101Regards
Andy, Skeeve, and Masato
prop-101-v004: Removing multihoming requirement for IPv6 portable assignments
- Introduction
This a proposal to change the "IPv6 address allocation and assignment policy" to allow portable (that is, provider independent or PI) assignments of IPv6 address blocks to be made by APNIC to any organization with due justification and payment of standard fees, removing the current requirement that the requestor is or plans to be multihomed.
- Summary of the current problem
Current APNIC policy only permits portable assignments of IPv6 addresses to be made to an organization "if it is currently multihomed or plans to be multihomed within three months." [1] This requirement may unnecessarily complicate the implementation of IPv6 in some networks that are large or complex and use static assignment of addresses. It is therefore proposed to remove this requirement.
IPv6 models tend to assume widespread assignment of registered IPv6 addresses to equipment throughout a network; so if provider assigned IPv6 addresses have been used in an organization's network, then any change of ISP would require a renumbering of the entire network. Such renumbering may be feasible if the network is small or dynamically assigned (for example, through use of prefix-delegation), but renumbering a large, statically-assigned network would be a significant operational challenge, and may not be practically possible.
Although it is likely that many large networks would be multihomed, there will be technical or commercial reasons why some will not be; currently those networks cannot obtain portable IPv6 assignments from APNIC, and would need to use assignments from their ISPs, and accept the associated difficulties of future renumbering if they do so. This consideration and complexity could significantly delay IPv6 use by the affected organisations, which is not desirable.
There is a risk that removing the multihoming requirement could cause a significant increase in demand for portable assignments, which in turn could cause the Internet routing tables to grow beyond manageable levels. It is not feasible to quickly generate any realistic model of likely demand increase which would arise from the proposed policy change, but it is argued that any such increase would only be of a scale to produce a manageable impact on global routing, for reasons including:
- Organizations would only be likely to seek portable addressing if they believed it were essential for their operations, as provider assigned IPv6 addressing would be likely to be offered automatically and at no additional cost with their Internet services from their ISP; - APNIC membership fees would be expected to naturally discourage unnecessary requests, as these would be a far greater cost than that for provider assigned addressing; - Many or most organizations that require portable addressing will be multihomed, so the demand increase caused by removing the multihomed requirement should be small; - Only a limited set of an ISP's products is likely to allow customers to use portable assignments if they are singly-homed.3.Situation in other RIRs
APNIC is now the only RIR remaining with an absolute requirement for multihoming for portable address assignments.
AfriNIC: The "Policy for IPv6 ProviderIndependent (PI) Assignment for End-Sites" [2] does not mention any requirement for multihoming;
ARIN: Section 6.5.8 of the "ARIN Number Resource Policy Manual" [3] only identifies multihoming as one of several alternative criteria for direct IPv6 assignment to end-user organizations;
LACNIC: There is no mention of multihoming anywhere in the IPv6 section (Section 4) of the current LACNIC Policy Manual (v1.8 - 07/12/2011) [4].
RIPE: The latest version (RIPE-545 [5]) published in January 2012 of the "IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy" does not mention multihoming, removing the requirement that existed in previous versions of the document.
4.Details
It is proposed that section 5.9.1 of APNIC's "IPv6 address allocation and assignment policy" (apnic-089-v010) is rewritten to remove the absolute multihoming requirement for portable assignments, and to incorporate the following conditions:
A. Portable IPv6 assignments are to be made only to organizations that have either joined APNIC as members or have signed the non-member agreement, under the standard terms& conditions and paying the standard fees applicable for their respective category.
B. An organization will be automatically eligible for a minimum IPv6 portable assignment if they have previously justified an IPv4 portable assignment from APNIC.
C. Requests by organizations that have not previously received an IPv4 portable assignment will need to be accompanied by:
(a) a reasonable technical justification indicating why IPv6 addresses from an ISP or other LIR are unsuitable - examples of suitable technical justifications may include (but are notlimited to):
(i) Demonstration that the relevant network is statically addressed and of a size or complexity that would make IPv6 renumbering operationally impractical within an acceptable business period, together with evidence that dynamic or multiple addressing options are either not available from the relevant ISP or are unsuitable for use by the organization; (ii) Demonstration that any future renumbering of the relevant network could potentially interfere with services of a critical medical or civic nature; (b) A detailed plan of intended usage of the proposed address block over at least the 12 months following allocation.D. The minimum IPv6 portable assignment to any organization is to be an address block of /48. A portable assignment of a larger block (that is, a block with a prefix mask less than /48) may be made:
(a) If it is needed to ensure that the HD-ratio for the planned network assignments from the block remains below the applied HD-ratio threshold specified in Section 5.3.1 of the APNIC IPv6 policy [6], or; (b) If addressing is required for 2 or more of the organization's sites operating distinct and unconnected networks. Any requests for address blocks larger than the minimum size will need to be accompanied by a detailed plan of the intended usage of the proposed assignment over at least the following 12 months.E. In order to minimise routing table impacts:
(a) Only one IPv6 address block is to be given to an organization upon an initial request for a portable assignment; subnets of this block may be assigned by the organization to its different sites if needed; (b) It is recommended that the APNIC Secretariat applies sparse allocation methodologies so that any subsequent requests from an organization for additional portable addressing would be accommodated where possible through a change of prefix mask of a previous assignment (for example, 2001:db8:1000::/48 -> ] 2001:db8:1000::/44), rather than through allocation of a new prefix. An additional prefix should only be allocated where it is not possible to simply change the prefix mask. (c) Any subsequent request for an additional portable assignment to an organization must be accompanied by information demonstrating: (i) Why an additional portable assignment is required, and why an assignment from from an ISP or other LIR cannot be used for this purpose instead; (ii) That the use of previous portable IPv6 allocations generated the minimum possible number of global routing announcements and the maximum aggregation of that block; (iii) How the additional assignment would be managed to minimise the growth of the global IPv6 routing table. (d) The APNIC Secretariat will produce reports of the number of portable IPv6 assignments requested, preferably as an automatically-generated daily graph of the number of cumulative IPv6 portable assignments published publically on the APNIC website, or else as regular (at a minimum, quarterly) reports sent to the sig-policy mailing list detailing the incremental assignments of new IPv6 portable assignments made since the last report, plus the cumulative total of IPv6 portable assignments.5.Pros/Cons
Advantages:
- This proposal would provide access to portable IPv6 addresses for all organizations with valid needs, removing a potential impediment to industry standard IPv6 addressing for large singly-homed networks - This change would align APNIC with the policies of all other RIRs on portable assignmentsDisadvantages:
- There would be a risk of an unmanageably large increase in global IPv6 routing table size and APNIC workload if there were to be a substantial and widespread increase in demand for portable assignments arising from the removal of the multihoming requirement - But demand is expected to be limited by the requirements specified in section 4 for justifications and APNIC standard fees, as well as other industry factors such as the capability of Internet services to support portable addressing.6.Effect on APNIC
The impact of this proposal on the APNIC Secretariat would depend on the increase of demand for portable assignments. Even if demand is eventually large, it is unlikely that there will be an significant change in hostmaster workloads for a long time because of the slow rate of take up of IPv6, and so there should be sufficient time to identify and take steps to modify policies and processes if necessary to manage the increase.
7.Effect on NIRs
This proposal specifically applies to portable assignments made by APNIC. It would be the choice of each NIR as to whether they would adopt a similar policy.
References:
[1] Section 5.9.1, IPv6 address allocation and assignment policy, http://www.apnic.net/policy/ipv6-address-policy#5.9 [2] http://www.afrinic.net/docs/policies/AFPUB-2007-v6-001.htm [3] https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#six58 [4] http://www.lacnic.net/en/politicas/manual5.html [5] http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-545 [6]Section 5.3.1, IPv6 address allocation and assignment policy, http://www.apnic.net/policy/ipv6-address-policy#5.3
Sig-policy-chair mailing list Sig-policy-chair@apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy-chair
sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
I too support this version of the proposal
On Thursday, March 8, 2012, Randy Whitney randy.whitney@verizon.com wrote:
I support this version of the proposal, which removes the controversial 4.E.e Sunset Clause from the text, while leaving the 4.E.d Reporting requirement.
Best Regards, Randy.
On 3/6/2012 8:20 PM, Masato Yamanishi wrote:
Dear SIG members
# I'm sending this notification on behalf of Andy Linton, Policy SIG
chair
Version 3 of prop-101 Removing multihoming requirement for IPv6 portable assignments, did not reach consensus at the APNIC 33 Policy SIG. Therefore, this proposal is being returned to the author and the Policy SIG mailing list for further discussion.
The author has submitted a revised proposal, prop-101-v004, for further discussion on the Policy SIG mailing list.
Proposal details
This is a proposal to change the "IPv6 address allocation and assignment policy" to allow portable (that is, provider independent or PI) assignments of IPv6 address blocks to be made by APNIC to any organization with due justification and payment of standard fees, removing the current requirement that the requestor is or plans to be multihomed.
Proposal details including the full text of the proposal, history, and links to mailing list discussions are available at:
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-101Regards
Andy, Skeeve, and Masato
prop-101-v004: Removing multihoming requirement for IPv6 portable assignments
- Introduction
This a proposal to change the "IPv6 address allocation and assignment policy" to allow portable (that is, provider independent or PI) assignments of IPv6 address blocks to be made by APNIC to any organization with due justification and payment of standard fees, removing the current requirement that the requestor is or plans to be multihomed.
- Summary of the current problem
Current APNIC policy only permits portable assignments of IPv6 addresses to be made to an organization "if it is currently multihomed or plans to be multihomed within three months." [1] This requirement may unnecessarily complicate the implementation of IPv6 in some networks that are large or complex and use static assignment of addresses. It is therefore proposed to remove this requirement.
IPv6 models tend to assume widespread assignment of registered IPv6 addresses to equipment throughout a network; so if provider assigned IPv6 addresses have been used in an organization's network, then any change of ISP would require a renumbering of the entire network. Such renumbering may be feasible if the network is small or dynamically assigned (for example, through use of prefix-delegation), but renumbering a large, statically-assigned network would be a significant operational challenge, and may not be practically possible.
Although it is likely that many large networks would be multihomed, there will be technical or commercial reasons why some will not be; currently those networks cannot obtain portable IPv6 assignments from APNIC, and would need to use assignments from their ISPs, and accept the associated difficulties of future renumbering if they do so. This consideration and complexity could significantly delay IPv6 use by the affected organisations, which is not desirable.
There is a risk that removing the multihoming requirement could cause a significant increase in demand for portable assignments, which in turn could cause the Internet routing tables to grow beyond manageable levels. It is not feasible to quickly generate any realistic model of likely demand increase which would arise from the proposed policy change, but it is argued that any such increase would only be of a scale to produce a manageable impact on global routing, for reasons including:
- Organizations would only be likely to seek portable addressing if they believed it were essential for their operations, as provider assigned > non-member agreement, under the standard terms&
conditions and
paying the standard fees applicable for their respective category.B. An organization will be automatically eligible for a minimum IPv6 portable assignment if they have previously justified an IPv4 portable assignment from APNIC.
C. Requests by organizations that have not previously received an IPv4 portable assignment will need to be accompanied by:
(a) a reasonable technical justification indicating why IPv6 addresses from an ISP or other LIR are unsuitable - examples of suitable technical justifications may include (but are notlimited to):
(i) Demonstration that the relevant network is statically addressed and of a size or complexity that would make IPv6 renumbering operationally impractical within an acceptable business period, together with evidence that dynamic or multiple addressing options are either not available from the relevant ISP or are unsuitable for use by the organization; (ii) Demonstration that any future renumbering of the relevant network could potentially interfere with services of a critical medical or civic nature; (b) A detailed plan of intended usage of the proposed address block over at least the 12 months following allocation.D. The minimum IPv6 portable assignment to any organization is to be an address block of /48. A portable assignment of a larger block (that is, a block with a prefix mask less than /48) may be made:
(a) If it is needed to ensure that the HD-ratio for the planned network assignments from the block remains below the applied HD-ratio threshold specified in Section 5.3.1 of the APNIC IPv6 policy [6], or; (b) If addressing is required for 2 or more of the organization's sites operating distinct and unconnected networks. Any requests for address blocks larger than the minimum size will need to be accompanied by a detailed plan of the intended usage of the proposed assignment over at least the following 12 months.E. In order to minimise routing table impacts:
(a) Only one IPv6 address block is to be given to an organization upon an initial request for a portable assignment; subnets of this block may be assigned by the organization to its different sites if needed; (b) It is recommended that the APNIC Secretariat applies sparse allocation methodologies so that any subsequent requests from
an
organization for additional portable addressing would be accommodated where possible through a change of prefix mask of
a
previous assignment (for example, 2001:db8:1000::/48 -> ] 2001:db8:1000::/44), rather than through allocation of a new prefix. An additional prefix should only be allocated where it is not possible to simply change the prefix mask. (c) Any subsequent request for an additional portable assignment to an organization must be accompanied by information demonstrating: (i) Why an additional portable assignment is required, and why
I don't object to allow a few exceptional /48 portable assignments, and I don't insist on the '2-year-expiration', but I suggest either define the 'reasonable justification' criterias explicitly & clearly or put in some safeguarding limit.
Regards Terence
----- Original Message ----- From: Dean Pemberton To: Randy Whitney Cc: sig-policy@apnic.net Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2012 11:14 AM Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-101 Returned to mailing list and Newversionposted
I too support this version of the proposal
On Thursday, March 8, 2012, Randy Whitney randy.whitney@verizon.com wrote:
I support this version of the proposal, which removes the controversial 4.E.e Sunset Clause from the text, while leaving the 4.E.d Reporting requirement.
Best Regards, Randy.
On 3/6/2012 8:20 PM, Masato Yamanishi wrote:
Dear SIG members
# I'm sending this notification on behalf of Andy Linton, Policy SIG chair
Version 3 of prop-101 Removing multihoming requirement for IPv6 portable assignments, did not reach consensus at the APNIC 33 Policy SIG. Therefore, this proposal is being returned to the author and the Policy SIG mailing list for further discussion.
The author has submitted a revised proposal, prop-101-v004, for further discussion on the Policy SIG mailing list.
Proposal details
This is a proposal to change the "IPv6 address allocation and assignment policy" to allow portable (that is, provider independent or PI) assignments of IPv6 address blocks to be made by APNIC to any organization with due justification and payment of standard fees, removing the current requirement that the requestor is or plans to be multihomed.
Proposal details including the full text of the proposal, history, and links to mailing list discussions are available at:
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-101Regards
Andy, Skeeve, and Masato
prop-101-v004: Removing multihoming requirement for IPv6 portable assignments
- Introduction
This a proposal to change the "IPv6 address allocation and assignment policy" to allow portable (that is, provider independent or PI) assignments of IPv6 address blocks to be made by APNIC to any organization with due justification and payment of standard fees, removing the current requirement that the requestor is or plans to be multihomed.
- Summary of the current problem
Current APNIC policy only permits portable assignments of IPv6 addresses to be made to an organization "if it is currently multihomed or plans to be multihomed within three months." [1] This requirement may unnecessarily complicate the implementation of IPv6 in some networks that are large or complex and use static assignment of addresses. It is therefore proposed to remove this requirement.
IPv6 models tend to assume widespread assignment of registered IPv6 addresses to equipment throughout a network; so if provider assigned IPv6 addresses have been used in an organization's network, then any change of ISP would require a renumbering of the entire network. Such renumbering may be feasible if the network is small or dynamically assigned (for example, through use of prefix-delegation), but renumbering a large, statically-assigned network would be a significant operational challenge, and may not be practically possible.
Although it is likely that many large networks would be multihomed, there will be technical or commercial reasons why some will not be; currently those networks cannot obtain portable IPv6 assignments from APNIC, and would need to use assignments from their ISPs, and accept the associated difficulties of future renumbering if they do so. This consideration and complexity could significantly delay IPv6 use by the affected organisations, which is not desirable.
There is a risk that removing the multihoming requirement could cause a significant increase in demand for portable assignments, which in turn could cause the Internet routing tables to grow beyond manageable levels. It is not feasible to quickly generate any realistic model of likely demand increase which would arise from the proposed policy change, but it is argued that any such increase would only be of a scale to produce a manageable impact on global routing, for reasons including:
- Organizations would only be likely to seek portable addressing if they believed it were essential for their operations, as provider assigned > non-member agreement, under the standard terms& conditions and paying the standard fees applicable for their respective category.B. An organization will be automatically eligible for a minimum IPv6 portable assignment if they have previously justified an IPv4 portable assignment from APNIC.
C. Requests by organizations that have not previously received an IPv4 portable assignment will need to be accompanied by:
(a) a reasonable technical justification indicating why IPv6 addresses from an ISP or other LIR are unsuitable - examples of suitable technical justifications may include (but are notlimited to):
(i) Demonstration that the relevant network is statically addressed and of a size or complexity that would make IPv6 renumbering operationally impractical within an acceptable business period, together with evidence that dynamic or multiple addressing options are either not available from the relevant ISP or are unsuitable for use by the organization; (ii) Demonstration that any future renumbering of the relevant network could potentially interfere with services of a critical medical or civic nature; (b) A detailed plan of intended usage of the proposed address block over at least the 12 months following allocation.D. The minimum IPv6 portable assignment to any organization is to be an address block of /48. A portable assignment of a larger block (that is, a block with a prefix mask less than /48) may be made:
(a) If it is needed to ensure that the HD-ratio for the planned network assignments from the block remains below the applied HD-ratio threshold specified in Section 5.3.1 of the APNIC IPv6 policy [6], or; (b) If addressing is required for 2 or more of the organization's sites operating distinct and unconnected networks. Any requests for address blocks larger than the minimum size will need to be accompanied by a detailed plan of the intended usage of the proposed assignment over at least the following 12 months.E. In order to minimise routing table impacts:
(a) Only one IPv6 address block is to be given to an organization upon an initial request for a portable assignment; subnets of this block may be assigned by the organization to its different sites if needed; (b) It is recommended that the APNIC Secretariat applies sparse allocation methodologies so that any subsequent requests from an organization for additional portable addressing would be accommodated where possible through a change of prefix mask of a previous assignment (for example, 2001:db8:1000::/48 -> ] 2001:db8:1000::/44), rather than through allocation of a new prefix. An additional prefix should only be allocated where it is not possible to simply change the prefix mask. (c) Any subsequent request for an additional portable assignment to an organization must be accompanied by information demonstrating: (i) Why an additional portable assignment is required, and why
-- Regards,
Dean
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
I'm not sure I fully understand your concern here, Terrence. ARIN has been issuing portable /48 assignments for a few years now. I think it is a reasonable minimum end-user assignment for IPv6. Can you elaborate on what you mean by "a few exceptional"?
Owen
On Mar 8, 2012, at 5:26 AM, Terence Zhang YH wrote:
I don't object to allow a few exceptional /48 portable assignments, and I don't insist on the '2-year-expiration', but I suggest either define the 'reasonable justification' criterias explicitly & clearly or put in some safeguarding limit.
Regards Terence
----- Original Message ----- From: Dean Pemberton To: Randy Whitney Cc: sig-policy@apnic.net Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2012 11:14 AM Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-101 Returned to mailing list and Newversionposted
I too support this version of the proposal
On Thursday, March 8, 2012, Randy Whitney randy.whitney@verizon.com wrote:
I support this version of the proposal, which removes the controversial 4.E.e Sunset Clause from the text, while leaving the 4.E.d Reporting requirement.
Best Regards, Randy.
On 3/6/2012 8:20 PM, Masato Yamanishi wrote:
Dear SIG members
# I'm sending this notification on behalf of Andy Linton, Policy SIG chair
Version 3 of prop-101 Removing multihoming requirement for IPv6 portable assignments, did not reach consensus at the APNIC 33 Policy SIG. Therefore, this proposal is being returned to the author and the Policy SIG mailing list for further discussion.
The author has submitted a revised proposal, prop-101-v004, for further discussion on the Policy SIG mailing list.
Proposal details
This is a proposal to change the "IPv6 address allocation and assignment policy" to allow portable (that is, provider independent or PI) assignments of IPv6 address blocks to be made by APNIC to any organization with due justification and payment of standard fees, removing the current requirement that the requestor is or plans to be multihomed.
Proposal details including the full text of the proposal, history, and links to mailing list discussions are available at:
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-101Regards
Andy, Skeeve, and Masato
prop-101-v004: Removing multihoming requirement for IPv6 portable assignments
- Introduction
This a proposal to change the "IPv6 address allocation and assignment policy" to allow portable (that is, provider independent or PI) assignments of IPv6 address blocks to be made by APNIC to any organization with due justification and payment of standard fees, removing the current requirement that the requestor is or plans to be multihomed.
- Summary of the current problem
Current APNIC policy only permits portable assignments of IPv6 addresses to be made to an organization "if it is currently multihomed or plans to be multihomed within three months." [1] This requirement may unnecessarily complicate the implementation of IPv6 in some networks that are large or complex and use static assignment of addresses. It is therefore proposed to remove this requirement.
IPv6 models tend to assume widespread assignment of registered IPv6 addresses to equipment throughout a network; so if provider assigned IPv6 addresses have been used in an organization's network, then any change of ISP would require a renumbering of the entire network. Such renumbering may be feasible if the network is small or dynamically assigned (for example, through use of prefix-delegation), but renumbering a large, statically-assigned network would be a significant operational challenge, and may not be practically possible.
Although it is likely that many large networks would be multihomed, there will be technical or commercial reasons why some will not be; currently those networks cannot obtain portable IPv6 assignments from APNIC, and would need to use assignments from their ISPs, and accept the associated difficulties of future renumbering if they do so. This consideration and complexity could significantly delay IPv6 use by the affected organisations, which is not desirable.
There is a risk that removing the multihoming requirement could cause a significant increase in demand for portable assignments, which in turn could cause the Internet routing tables to grow beyond manageable levels. It is not feasible to quickly generate any realistic model of likely demand increase which would arise from the proposed policy change, but it is argued that any such increase would only be of a scale to produce a manageable impact on global routing, for reasons including:
- Organizations would only be likely to seek portable addressing if they believed it were essential for their operations, as provider assigned > non-member agreement, under the standard terms& conditions and paying the standard fees applicable for their respective category.B. An organization will be automatically eligible for a minimum IPv6 portable assignment if they have previously justified an IPv4 portable assignment from APNIC.
C. Requests by organizations that have not previously received an IPv4 portable assignment will need to be accompanied by:
(a) a reasonable technical justification indicating why IPv6 addresses from an ISP or other LIR are unsuitable - examples of suitable technical justifications may include (but are notlimited to):
(i) Demonstration that the relevant network is statically addressed and of a size or complexity that would make IPv6 renumbering operationally impractical within an acceptable business period, together with evidence that dynamic or multiple addressing options are either not available from the relevant ISP or are unsuitable for use by the organization; (ii) Demonstration that any future renumbering of the relevant network could potentially interfere with services of a critical medical or civic nature; (b) A detailed plan of intended usage of the proposed address block over at least the 12 months following allocation.D. The minimum IPv6 portable assignment to any organization is to be an address block of /48. A portable assignment of a larger block (that is, a block with a prefix mask less than /48) may be made:
(a) If it is needed to ensure that the HD-ratio for the planned network assignments from the block remains below the applied HD-ratio threshold specified in Section 5.3.1 of the APNIC IPv6 policy [6], or; (b) If addressing is required for 2 or more of the organization's sites operating distinct and unconnected networks. Any requests for address blocks larger than the minimum size will need to be accompanied by a detailed plan of the intended usage of the proposed assignment over at least the following 12 months.E. In order to minimise routing table impacts:
(a) Only one IPv6 address block is to be given to an organization upon an initial request for a portable assignment; subnets of this block may be assigned by the organization to its different sites if needed; (b) It is recommended that the APNIC Secretariat applies sparse allocation methodologies so that any subsequent requests from an organization for additional portable addressing would be accommodated where possible through a change of prefix mask of a previous assignment (for example, 2001:db8:1000::/48 -> ] 2001:db8:1000::/44), rather than through allocation of a new prefix. An additional prefix should only be allocated where it is not possible to simply change the prefix mask. (c) Any subsequent request for an additional portable assignment to an organization must be accompanied by information demonstrating: (i) Why an additional portable assignment is required, and why-- Regards,
Dean
sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
What I mean is I support expanding the current portable assignment criterias (multihome, IXP, CI), but not to replace the current criterias with a 'reasonable justification'.
Regards Terence ----- Original Message ----- From: Owen DeLong To: Terence Zhang YH Cc: Dean Pemberton ; Randy Whitney ; sig-policy@apnic.net Sent: Friday, March 09, 2012 12:24 AM Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-101 Returned to mailing list and Newversionposted
I'm not sure I fully understand your concern here, Terrence. ARIN has been issuing portable /48 assignments for a few years now. I think it is a reasonable minimum end-user assignment for IPv6. Can you elaborate on what you mean by "a few exceptional"?
Owen
On Mar 8, 2012, at 5:26 AM, Terence Zhang YH wrote:
I don't object to allow a few exceptional /48 portable assignments, and I don't insist on the '2-year-expiration', but I suggest either define the 'reasonable justification' criterias explicitly & clearly or put in some safeguarding limit.
Regards Terence
----- Original Message ----- From: Dean Pemberton To: Randy Whitney Cc: sig-policy@apnic.net Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2012 11:14 AM Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-101 Returned to mailing list and Newversionposted
I too support this version of the proposal
On Thursday, March 8, 2012, Randy Whitney randy.whitney@verizon.com wrote: > I support this version of the proposal, which removes the controversial > 4.E.e Sunset Clause from the text, while leaving the 4.E.d Reporting > requirement. > > Best Regards, > Randy. > > On 3/6/2012 8:20 PM, Masato Yamanishi wrote: >> Dear SIG members >> >> # I'm sending this notification on behalf of Andy Linton, Policy SIG chair >> >> Version 3 of prop-101 Removing multihoming requirement for IPv6 portable >> assignments, did not reach consensus at the APNIC 33 Policy SIG. >> Therefore, this proposal is being returned to the author >> and the Policy SIG mailing list for further discussion. >> >> The author has submitted a revised proposal, prop-101-v004, for further >> discussion on the Policy SIG mailing list. >> >> >> Proposal details >> --------------------- >> >> This is a proposal to change the "IPv6 address allocation and assignment >> policy" to allow portable (that is, provider independent or PI) >> assignments of IPv6 address blocks to be made by APNIC to any >> organization with due justification and payment of standard fees, >> removing the current requirement that the requestor is or plans to be >> multihomed. >> >> >> Proposal details including the full text of the proposal, history, and >> links to mailing list discussions are available at: >> >> http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-101 >> >> Regards >> >> Andy, Skeeve, and Masato >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> prop-101-v004: Removing multihoming requirement for IPv6 portable >> assignments >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> >> 1. Introduction >> --------------- >> >> This a proposal to change the "IPv6 address allocation and assignment >> policy" to allow portable (that is, provider independent or PI) >> assignments of IPv6 address blocks to be made by APNIC to any >> organization with due justification and payment of standard fees, >> removing the current requirement that the requestor is or plans to be >> multihomed. >> >> 2. Summary of the current problem >> --------------------------------- >> >> Current APNIC policy only permits portable assignments of IPv6 >> addresses to be made to an organization "if it is currently multihomed >> or plans to be multihomed within three months." [1] This requirement may >> unnecessarily complicate the implementation of IPv6 in some networks >> that are large or complex and use static assignment of addresses. It is >> therefore proposed to remove this requirement. >> >> IPv6 models tend to assume widespread assignment of registered IPv6 >> addresses to equipment throughout a network; so if provider assigned >> IPv6 addresses have been used in an organization's network, then any >> change of ISP would require a renumbering of the entire network. Such >> renumbering may be feasible if the network is small or dynamically >> assigned (for example, through use of prefix-delegation), but >> renumbering a large, statically-assigned network would be a significant >> operational challenge, and may not be practically possible. >> >> Although it is likely that many large networks would be multihomed, >> there will be technical or commercial reasons why some will not be; >> currently those networks cannot obtain portable IPv6 assignments from >> APNIC, and would need to use assignments from their ISPs, and accept the >> associated difficulties of future renumbering if they do so. This >> consideration and complexity could significantly delay IPv6 use by the >> affected organisations, which is not desirable. >> >> There is a risk that removing the multihoming requirement could cause >> a significant increase in demand for portable assignments, which in turn >> could cause the Internet routing tables to grow beyond manageable >> levels. It is not feasible to quickly generate any realistic model of >> likely demand increase which would arise from the proposed policy >> change, but it is argued that any such increase would only be of a scale >> to produce a manageable impact on global routing, for reasons including: >> >> - Organizations would only be likely to seek portable addressing if >> they believed it were essential for their operations, as provider >> assigned > non-member agreement, under the standard terms& conditions and >> paying the standard fees applicable for their respective category. >> >> B. An organization will be automatically eligible for a minimum IPv6 >> portable assignment if they have previously justified an IPv4 >> portable assignment from APNIC. >> >> C. Requests by organizations that have not previously received an >> IPv4 portable assignment will need to be accompanied by: >> >> (a) a reasonable technical justification indicating why IPv6 >> addresses from an ISP or other LIR are unsuitable - examples of >> suitable technical justifications may include (but are not >> limited to): >> >> (i) Demonstration that the relevant network is statically >> addressed and of a size or complexity that would make IPv6 >> renumbering operationally impractical within an acceptable >> business period, together with evidence that dynamic or >> multiple addressing options are either not available from >> the relevant ISP or are unsuitable for use by the >> organization; >> >> (ii) Demonstration that any future renumbering of the relevant >> network could potentially interfere with services of a >> critical medical or civic nature; >> >> (b) A detailed plan of intended usage of the proposed address block >> over at least the 12 months following allocation. >> >> D. The minimum IPv6 portable assignment to any organization is to be >> an address block of /48. A portable assignment of a larger block >> (that is, a block with a prefix mask less than /48) may be made: >> >> (a) If it is needed to ensure that the HD-ratio for the planned >> network assignments from the block remains below the applied >> HD-ratio threshold specified in Section 5.3.1 of the APNIC IPv6 >> policy [6], or; >> >> (b) If addressing is required for 2 or more of the organization's >> sites operating distinct and unconnected networks. >> >> Any requests for address blocks larger than the minimum size will >> need to be accompanied by a detailed plan of the intended usage of >> the proposed assignment over at least the following 12 months. >> >> E. In order to minimise routing table impacts: >> >> (a) Only one IPv6 address block is to be given to an organization >> upon an initial request for a portable assignment; subnets of >> this block may be assigned by the organization to its different >> sites if needed; >> >> (b) It is recommended that the APNIC Secretariat applies sparse >> allocation methodologies so that any subsequent requests from an >> organization for additional portable addressing would be >> accommodated where possible through a change of prefix mask of a >> previous assignment (for example, 2001:db8:1000::/48 -> ] >> 2001:db8:1000::/44), rather than through allocation of a new >> prefix. An additional prefix should only be allocated where it >> is not possible to simply change the prefix mask. >> >> (c) Any subsequent request for an additional portable assignment to >> an organization must be accompanied by information >> demonstrating: >> >> (i) Why an additional portable assignment is required, and why >>
-- Regards,
Dean
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
Terence,
May I ask whether you consider that the ARIN criteria adequately meet your concerns? For example, if I cut and paste the ARIN criteria (especially the "2000 addresses or 200 /64s" criteria), would that be sufficient gain your support for the proposal?
Regards, David
At 12:32 PM 9/03/2012, Terence Zhang YH wrote:
What I mean is I support expanding the current portable assignment criterias (multihome, IXP, CI), but not to replace the current criterias with a 'reasonable justification'.
Regards Terence ----- Original Message ----- From: mailto:owen@delong.comOwen DeLong To: mailto:zhangyinghao@cnnic.cnTerence Zhang YH Cc: mailto:dean@deanpemberton.comDean Pemberton ; mailto:randy.whitney@verizon.comRandy Whitney ; mailto:sig-policy@apnic.netsig-policy@apnic.net Sent: Friday, March 09, 2012 12:24 AM Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-101 Returned to mailing list and Newversionposted
I'm not sure I fully understand your concern here, Terrence. ARIN has been issuing portable /48 assignments for a few years now. I think it is a reasonable minimum end-user assignment for IPv6. Can you elaborate on what you mean by "a few exceptional"?
Owen
On Mar 8, 2012, at 5:26 AM, Terence Zhang YH wrote:
I don't object to allow a few exceptional /48 portable assignments, and I don't insist on the '2-year-expiration', but I suggest either define the 'reasonable justification' criterias explicitly & clearly or put in some safeguarding limit.
Regards Terence
----- Original Message ----- From: mailto:dean@deanpemberton.comDean Pemberton To: mailto:randy.whitney@verizon.comRandy Whitney Cc: mailto:sig-policy@apnic.netsig-policy@apnic.net Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2012 11:14 AM Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-101 Returned to mailing list and Newversionposted
I too support this version of the proposal
On Thursday, March 8, 2012, Randy Whitney <mailto:randy.whitney@verizon.comrandy.whitney@verizon.com> wrote:
I support this version of the proposal, which removes the controversial 4.E.e Sunset Clause from the text, while leaving the 4.E.d Reporting requirement.
Best Regards, Randy.
On 3/6/2012 8:20 PM, Masato Yamanishi wrote:
Dear SIG members
# I'm sending this notification on behalf of Andy Linton,
Policy SIG chair
Version 3 of prop-101 Removing multihoming requirement for IPv6 portable assignments, did not reach consensus at the APNIC 33 Policy SIG. Therefore, this proposal is being returned to the author and the Policy SIG mailing list for further discussion.
The author has submitted a revised proposal, prop-101-v004, for further discussion on the Policy SIG mailing list.
Proposal details
This is a proposal to change the "IPv6 address allocation and assignment policy" to allow portable (that is, provider independent or PI) assignments of IPv6 address blocks to be made by APNIC to any organization with due justification and payment of standard fees, removing the current requirement that the requestor is or plans to be multihomed.
Proposal details including the full text of the proposal, history, and links to mailing list discussions are available at:
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-101http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-101
Regards
Andy, Skeeve, and Masato
prop-101-v004: Removing multihoming requirement for IPv6 portable assignments
- Introduction
This a proposal to change the "IPv6 address allocation and assignment policy" to allow portable (that is, provider independent or PI) assignments of IPv6 address blocks to be made by APNIC to any organization with due justification and payment of standard fees, removing the current requirement that the requestor is or plans to be multihomed.
- Summary of the current problem
Current APNIC policy only permits portable assignments of IPv6 addresses to be made to an organization "if it is currently multihomed or plans to be multihomed within three months." [1] This requirement may unnecessarily complicate the implementation of IPv6 in some networks that are large or complex and use static assignment of addresses. It is therefore proposed to remove this requirement.
IPv6 models tend to assume widespread assignment of registered IPv6 addresses to equipment throughout a network; so if provider assigned IPv6 addresses have been used in an organization's network, then any change of ISP would require a renumbering of the entire network. Such renumbering may be feasible if the network is small or dynamically assigned (for example, through use of prefix-delegation), but renumbering a large, statically-assigned network would be a significant operational challenge, and may not be practically possible.
Although it is likely that many large networks would be multihomed, there will be technical or commercial reasons why some will not be; currently those networks cannot obtain portable IPv6 assignments from APNIC, and would need to use assignments from their ISPs, and accept the associated difficulties of future renumbering if they do so. This consideration and complexity could significantly delay IPv6 use by the affected organisations, which is not desirable.
There is a risk that removing the multihoming requirement could cause a significant increase in demand for portable assignments, which in turn could cause the Internet routing tables to grow beyond manageable levels. It is not feasible to quickly generate any realistic model of likely demand increase which would arise from the proposed policy change, but it is argued that any such increase would only be of a scale to produce a manageable impact on global routing, for reasons including:
- Organizations would only be likely to seek portable addressing if they believed it were essential for their operations, as provider assigned > non-member agreement, under thestandard terms& conditions and
paying the standard fees applicable for their respective category.B. An organization will be automatically eligible for a minimum IPv6 portable assignment if they have previously justified an IPv4 portable assignment from APNIC.
C. Requests by organizations that have not previously received an IPv4 portable assignment will need to be accompanied by:
(a) a reasonable technical justification indicating why IPv6 addresses from an ISP or other LIR are unsuitable - examples of suitable technical justifications may include (but are notlimited to):
(i) Demonstration that the relevant network is statically addressed and of a size or complexity that would make IPv6 renumbering operationally impractical within an acceptable business period, together with evidence that dynamic or multiple addressing options are either not available from the relevant ISP or are unsuitable for use by the organization; (ii) Demonstration that any future renumbering of the relevant network could potentially interfere with services of a critical medical or civic nature; (b) A detailed plan of intended usage of the proposed address block over at least the 12 months following allocation.D. The minimum IPv6 portable assignment to any organization is to be an address block of /48. A portable assignment of a larger block (that is, a block with a prefix mask less than /48) may be made:
(a) If it is needed to ensure that the HD-ratio for the planned network assignments from the block remains below the applied HD-ratio threshold specified in Section 5.3.1 of the APNIC IPv6 policy [6], or; (b) If addressing is required for 2 or more of the organization's sites operating distinct and unconnected networks. Any requests for address blocks larger than the minimum size will need to be accompanied by a detailed plan of the intended usage of the proposed assignment over at least the following 12 months.E. In order to minimise routing table impacts:
(a) Only one IPv6 address block is to be given to an organization upon an initial request for a portable assignment; subnets of this block may be assigned by the organization to its different sites if needed; (b) It is recommended that the APNIC Secretariat applies sparse allocation methodologies so that any subsequentrequests from an
organization for additional portable addressing would be accommodated where possible through a change ofprefix mask of a
previous assignment (for example, 2001:db8:1000::/48 -> ] 2001:db8:1000::/44), rather than through allocation of a new prefix. An additional prefix should only be allocated where it is not possible to simply change the prefix mask. (c) Any subsequent request for an additional portable assignment to an organization must be accompanied by information demonstrating: (i) Why an additional portable assignment is required, and why-- Regards,
Dean
sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource managementpolicy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.netsig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource managementpolicy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.netsig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource managementpolicy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
Hi David,
My concerns about prop-101 is not address consumption but route aggregation, I am afraid the popular use of portable assignments will make route aggregation less possible.
"2000 addresses or 200 /64s" seems to serve the 'conservation' purpose, but not the 'aggregation' purpose, I think we can explicitly define the situations where renumbering will result in a significant impact, which cannot be aviod technically.
Regards Terence ----- Original Message ----- From: David Woodgate To: Terence Zhang YH ; Owen DeLong Cc: sig-policy@apnic.net Sent: Friday, March 09, 2012 10:16 AM Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-101 Returned to mailing list and Newversionposted
Terence,
May I ask whether you consider that the ARIN criteria adequately meet your concerns? For example, if I cut and paste the ARIN criteria (especially the "2000 addresses or 200 /64s" criteria), would that be sufficient gain your support for the proposal?
Regards, David
At 12:32 PM 9/03/2012, Terence Zhang YH wrote:
What I mean is I support expanding the current portable assignment criterias (multihome, IXP, CI), but not to replace the current criterias with a 'reasonable justification'.
Regards Terence
----- Original Message -----
From: Owen DeLong
To: Terence Zhang YH
Cc: Dean Pemberton ; Randy Whitney ; sig-policy@apnic.net
Sent: Friday, March 09, 2012 12:24 AM
Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-101 Returned to mailing list and Newversionposted
I'm not sure I fully understand your concern here, Terrence. ARIN has been issuing portable /48 assignments for a few years now. I think it is a reasonable minimum end-user assignment for IPv6. Can you elaborate on what you mean by "a few exceptional"?
Owen
On Mar 8, 2012, at 5:26 AM, Terence Zhang YH wrote:
I don't object to allow a few exceptional /48 portable assignments,
and I don't insist on the '2-year-expiration',
but I suggest either define the 'reasonable justification' criterias explicitly & clearly
or put in some safeguarding limit.
Regards
Terence
----- Original Message -----
From: Dean Pemberton
To: Randy Whitney
Cc: sig-policy@apnic.net
Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2012 11:14 AM
Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-101 Returned to mailing list and Newversionposted
I too support this version of the proposal
On Thursday, March 8, 2012, Randy Whitney < randy.whitney@verizon.com> wrote:
> I support this version of the proposal, which removes the controversial
> 4.E.e Sunset Clause from the text, while leaving the 4.E.d Reporting
> requirement.
>
> Best Regards,
> Randy.
>
> On 3/6/2012 8:20 PM, Masato Yamanishi wrote:
>> Dear SIG members
>>
>> # I'm sending this notification on behalf of Andy Linton, Policy SIG chair
>>
>> Version 3 of prop-101 Removing multihoming requirement for IPv6 portable
>> assignments, did not reach consensus at the APNIC 33 Policy SIG.
>> Therefore, this proposal is being returned to the author
>> and the Policy SIG mailing list for further discussion.
>>
>> The author has submitted a revised proposal, prop-101-v004, for further
>> discussion on the Policy SIG mailing list.
>>
>>
>> Proposal details
>> ---------------------
>>
>> This is a proposal to change the "IPv6 address allocation and assignment
>> policy" to allow portable (that is, provider independent or PI)
>> assignments of IPv6 address blocks to be made by APNIC to any
>> organization with due justification and payment of standard fees,
>> removing the current requirement that the requestor is or plans to be
>> multihomed.
>>
>>
>> Proposal details including the full text of the proposal, history, and
>> links to mailing list discussions are available at:
>>
>> http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-101
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Andy, Skeeve, and Masato
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> prop-101-v004: Removing multihoming requirement for IPv6 portable
>> assignments
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>> 1. Introduction
>> ---------------
>>
>> This a proposal to change the "IPv6 address allocation and assignment
>> policy" to allow portable (that is, provider independent or PI)
>> assignments of IPv6 address blocks to be made by APNIC to any
>> organization with due justification and payment of standard fees,
>> removing the current requirement that the requestor is or plans to be
>> multihomed.
>>
>> 2. Summary of the current problem
>> ---------------------------------
>>
>> Current APNIC policy only permits portable assignments of IPv6
>> addresses to be made to an organization "if it is currently multihomed
>> or plans to be multihomed within three months." [1] This requirement may
>> unnecessarily complicate the implementation of IPv6 in some networks
>> that are large or complex and use static assignment of addresses. It is
>> therefore proposed to remove this requirement.
>>
>> IPv6 models tend to assume widespread assignment of registered IPv6
>> addresses to equipment throughout a network; so if provider assigned
>> IPv6 addresses have been used in an organization's network, then any
>> change of ISP would require a renumbering of the entire network. Such
>> renumbering may be feasible if the network is small or dynamically
>> assigned (for example, through use of prefix-delegation), but
>> renumbering a large, statically-assigned network would be a significant
>> operational challenge, and may not be practically possible.
>>
>> Although it is likely that many large networks would be multihomed,
>> there will be technical or commercial reasons why some will not be;
>> currently those networks cannot obtain portable IPv6 assignments from
>> APNIC, and would need to use assignments from their ISPs, and accept the
>> associated difficulties of future renumbering if they do so. This
>> consideration and complexity could significantly delay IPv6 use by the
>> affected organisations, which is not desirable.
>>
>> There is a risk that removing the multihoming requirement could cause
>> a significant increase in demand for portable assignments, which in turn
>> could cause the Internet routing tables to grow beyond manageable
>> levels. It is not feasible to quickly generate any realistic model of
>> likely demand increase which would arise from the proposed policy
>> change, but it is argued that any such increase would only be of a scale
>> to produce a manageable impact on global routing, for reasons including:
>>
>> - Organizations would only be likely to seek portable addressing if
>> they believed it were essential for their operations, as provider
>> assigned > non-member agreement, under the standard terms& conditions and
>> paying the standard fees applicable for their respective category.
>>
>> B. An organization will be automatically eligible for a minimum IPv6
>> portable assignment if they have previously justified an IPv4
>> portable assignment from APNIC.
>>
>> C. Requests by organizations that have not previously received an
>> IPv4 portable assignment will need to be accompanied by:
>>
>> (a) a reasonable technical justification indicating why IPv6
>> addresses from an ISP or other LIR are unsuitable - examples of
>> suitable technical justifications may include (but are not
>> limited to):
>>
>> (i) Demonstration that the relevant network is statically
>> addressed and of a size or complexity that would make IPv6
>> renumbering operationally impractical within an acceptable
>> business period, together with evidence that dynamic or
>> multiple addressing options are either not available from
>> the relevant ISP or are unsuitable for use by the
>> organization;
>>
>> (ii) Demonstration that any future renumbering of the relevant
>> network could potentially interfere with services of a
>> critical medical or civic nature;
>>
>> (b) A detailed plan of intended usage of the proposed address block
>> over at least the 12 months following allocation.
>>
>> D. The minimum IPv6 portable assignment to any organization is to be
>> an address block of /48. A portable assignment of a larger block
>> (that is, a block with a prefix mask less than /48) may be made:
>>
>> (a) If it is needed to ensure that the HD-ratio for the planned
>> network assignments from the block remains below the applied
>> HD-ratio threshold specified in Section 5.3.1 of the APNIC IPv6
>> policy [6], or;
>>
>> (b) If addressing is required for 2 or more of the organization's
>> sites operating distinct and unconnected networks.
>>
>> Any requests for address blocks larger than the minimum size will
>> need to be accompanied by a detailed plan of the intended usage of
>> the proposed assignment over at least the following 12 months.
>>
>> E. In order to minimise routing table impacts:
>>
>> (a) Only one IPv6 address block is to be given to an organization
>> upon an initial request for a portable assignment; subnets of
>> this block may be assigned by the organization to its different
>> sites if needed;
>>
>> (b) It is recommended that the APNIC Secretariat applies sparse
>> allocation methodologies so that any subsequent requests from an
>> organization for additional portable addressing would be
>> accommodated where possible through a change of prefix mask of a
>> previous assignment (for example, 2001:db8:1000::/48 -> ]
>> 2001:db8:1000::/44), rather than through allocation of a new
>> prefix. An additional prefix should only be allocated where it
>> is not possible to simply change the prefix mask.
>>
>> (c) Any subsequent request for an additional portable assignment to
>> an organization must be accompanied by information
>> demonstrating:
>>
>> (i) Why an additional portable assignment is required, and why
>>
--
Regards,
Dean
----------------------------------------------------------------------
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
_______________________________________________
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
_______________________________________________
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
I am less concerned about aggregation in IPv6.
Since the majority of the aggregation in IPv4 is the result of multiple prefixes being assigned to a few large organizations over time for growth (something like 30% of the routing table is held by the top 10 organizations), I think we have a lot more headroom in IPv6 to support address portability.
Making it unnecessarily and hugely expensive for customers to change ISPs is detrimental to the customers and the market in general by reducing competition and lowering the quality of service. Such an action should only be taken if it is absolutely critical to the continued functioning of the network.
In IPv4, we had need to do so. We have relaxed the extent to which we do so substantially in IPv4 seeking the balance between the minimum extent to which it is necessary to preserve a functional internet. As router technology and scale continue to improve, larger routing tables will be more feasible. (Remember, when CIDR was started, a 65K prefix table was a mighty fearful thing. Today, 400K prefixes is considered normal and many vendors are claiming 1M can be supported in their core routers.)
The prefix:ASN average ratio today is roughly 10 in IPv4. I expect IPv6 will probably settle in around 1.6-2.5.
Assuming continued growth in ASNs along the (strangely linear) lines seen here:
http://bgp.potaroo.net/cgi-bin/plota?file=%2fvar%2fdata%2fbgp%2fas2%2e0%2fbg...
I would expect about 65,000 ASNs in 5 years and 140,000 ASNs in 20 years.
That's roughly 350,000 IPv6 prefixes in 20 years.
Bottom line, if we can get rid of the massive IPv4 RIB/FIB mess in the next 5 years, we've got more than enough headroom to allow aggregation to be a concern of the past.
Owen
On Mar 12, 2012, at 12:21 AM, Terence Zhang YH wrote:
Hi David,
My concerns about prop-101 is not address consumption but route aggregation, I am afraid the popular use of portable assignments will make route aggregation less possible.
"2000 addresses or 200 /64s" seems to serve the 'conservation' purpose, but not the 'aggregation' purpose, I think we can explicitly define the situations where renumbering will result in a significant impact, which cannot be aviod technically.
Regards Terence ----- Original Message ----- From: David Woodgate To: Terence Zhang YH ; Owen DeLong Cc: sig-policy@apnic.net Sent: Friday, March 09, 2012 10:16 AM Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-101 Returned to mailing list and Newversionposted
Terence,
May I ask whether you consider that the ARIN criteria adequately meet your concerns? For example, if I cut and paste the ARIN criteria (especially the "2000 addresses or 200 /64s" criteria), would that be sufficient gain your support for the proposal?
Regards, David
At 12:32 PM 9/03/2012, Terence Zhang YH wrote:
What I mean is I support expanding the current portable assignment criterias (multihome, IXP, CI), but not to replace the current criterias with a 'reasonable justification'.
Regards Terence ----- Original Message ----- From: Owen DeLong To: Terence Zhang YH Cc: Dean Pemberton ; Randy Whitney ; sig-policy@apnic.net Sent: Friday, March 09, 2012 12:24 AM Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-101 Returned to mailing list and Newversionposted
I'm not sure I fully understand your concern here, Terrence. ARIN has been issuing portable /48 assignments for a few years now. I think it is a reasonable minimum end-user assignment for IPv6. Can you elaborate on what you mean by "a few exceptional"?
Owen
On Mar 8, 2012, at 5:26 AM, Terence Zhang YH wrote:
I don't object to allow a few exceptional /48 portable assignments, and I don't insist on the '2-year-expiration', but I suggest either define the 'reasonable justification' criterias explicitly & clearly or put in some safeguarding limit.
Regards Terence
----- Original Message ----- From: Dean Pemberton To: Randy Whitney Cc: sig-policy@apnic.net Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2012 11:14 AM Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-101 Returned to mailing list and Newversionposted
I too support this version of the proposal
On Thursday, March 8, 2012, Randy Whitney < randy.whitney@verizon.com> wrote:
I support this version of the proposal, which removes the controversial 4.E.e Sunset Clause from the text, while leaving the 4.E.d Reporting requirement.
Best Regards, Randy.
On 3/6/2012 8:20 PM, Masato Yamanishi wrote:
Dear SIG members
# I'm sending this notification on behalf of Andy Linton, Policy SIG chair
Version 3 of prop-101 Removing multihoming requirement for IPv6 portable assignments, did not reach consensus at the APNIC 33 Policy SIG. Therefore, this proposal is being returned to the author and the Policy SIG mailing list for further discussion.
The author has submitted a revised proposal, prop-101-v004, for further discussion on the Policy SIG mailing list.
Proposal details
This is a proposal to change the "IPv6 address allocation and assignment policy" to allow portable (that is, provider independent or PI) assignments of IPv6 address blocks to be made by APNIC to any organization with due justification and payment of standard fees, removing the current requirement that the requestor is or plans to be multihomed.
Proposal details including the full text of the proposal, history, and links to mailing list discussions are available at:
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-101Regards
Andy, Skeeve, and Masato
prop-101-v004: Removing multihoming requirement for IPv6 portable assignments
- Introduction
This a proposal to change the "IPv6 address allocation and assignment policy" to allow portable (that is, provider independent or PI) assignments of IPv6 address blocks to be made by APNIC to any organization with due justification and payment of standard fees, removing the current requirement that the requestor is or plans to be multihomed.
- Summary of the current problem
Current APNIC policy only permits portable assignments of IPv6 addresses to be made to an organization "if it is currently multihomed or plans to be multihomed within three months." [1] This requirement may unnecessarily complicate the implementation of IPv6 in some networks that are large or complex and use static assignment of addresses. It is therefore proposed to remove this requirement.
IPv6 models tend to assume widespread assignment of registered IPv6 addresses to equipment throughout a network; so if provider assigned IPv6 addresses have been used in an organization's network, then any change of ISP would require a renumbering of the entire network. Such renumbering may be feasible if the network is small or dynamically assigned (for example, through use of prefix-delegation), but renumbering a large, statically-assigned network would be a significant operational challenge, and may not be practically possible.
Although it is likely that many large networks would be multihomed, there will be technical or commercial reasons why some will not be; currently those networks cannot obtain portable IPv6 assignments from APNIC, and would need to use assignments from their ISPs, and accept the associated difficulties of future renumbering if they do so. This consideration and complexity could significantly delay IPv6 use by the affected organisations, which is not desirable.
There is a risk that removing the multihoming requirement could cause a significant increase in demand for portable assignments, which in turn could cause the Internet routing tables to grow beyond manageable levels. It is not feasible to quickly generate any realistic model of likely demand increase which would arise from the proposed policy change, but it is argued that any such increase would only be of a scale to produce a manageable impact on global routing, for reasons including:
- Organizations would only be likely to seek portable addressing if they believed it were essential for their operations, as provider assigned > non-member agreement, under the standard terms& conditions and paying the standard fees applicable for their respective category.B. An organization will be automatically eligible for a minimum IPv6 portable assignment if they have previously justified an IPv4 portable assignment from APNIC.
C. Requests by organizations that have not previously received an IPv4 portable assignment will need to be accompanied by:
(a) a reasonable technical justification indicating why IPv6 addresses from an ISP or other LIR are unsuitable - examples of suitable technical justifications may include (but are notlimited to):
(i) Demonstration that the relevant network is statically addressed and of a size or complexity that would make IPv6 renumbering operationally impractical within an acceptable business period, together with evidence that dynamic or multiple addressing options are either not available from the relevant ISP or are unsuitable for use by the organization; (ii) Demonstration that any future renumbering of the relevant network could potentially interfere with services of a critical medical or civic nature; (b) A detailed plan of intended usage of the proposed address block over at least the 12 months following allocation.D. The minimum IPv6 portable assignment to any organization is to be an address block of /48. A portable assignment of a larger block (that is, a block with a prefix mask less than /48) may be made:
(a) If it is needed to ensure that the HD-ratio for the planned network assignments from the block remains below the applied HD-ratio threshold specified in Section 5.3.1 of the APNIC IPv6 policy [6], or; (b) If addressing is required for 2 or more of the organization's sites operating distinct and unconnected networks. Any requests for address blocks larger than the minimum size will need to be accompanied by a detailed plan of the intended usage of the proposed assignment over at least the following 12 months.E. In order to minimise routing table impacts:
(a) Only one IPv6 address block is to be given to an organization upon an initial request for a portable assignment; subnets of this block may be assigned by the organization to its different sites if needed; (b) It is recommended that the APNIC Secretariat applies sparse allocation methodologies so that any subsequent requests from an organization for additional portable addressing would be accommodated where possible through a change of prefix mask of a previous assignment (for example, 2001:db8:1000::/48 -> ] 2001:db8:1000::/44), rather than through allocation of a new prefix. An additional prefix should only be allocated where it is not possible to simply change the prefix mask. (c) Any subsequent request for an additional portable assignment to an organization must be accompanied by information demonstrating: (i) Why an additional portable assignment is required, and why-- Regards,
Dean
sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
Hi,
On Mar 12, 2012, at 1:42 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Since the majority of the aggregation in IPv4 is the result of multiple prefixes being assigned to a few large organizations over time for growth
Could you provide a pointer to your analysis that leads you to this conclusion?
(something like 30% of the routing table is held by the top 10 organizations),
And this is a result of those organizations receiving blocks from the RIRs? I would have thought this meant that a large number folks with PI blocks are having them announced by a small set of providers.
Making it unnecessarily and hugely expensive for customers to change ISPs is detrimental to the customers and the market in general by reducing competition and lowering the quality of service. Such an action should only be taken if it is absolutely critical to the continued functioning of the network.
Agreed. However, one must be aware of the fact that route deaggregation is a bit like dumping CO2 into the atmosphere: you only notice the problem when it becomes a problem and by then, it becomes quite difficult to stop/fix.
Bottom line, if we can get rid of the massive IPv4 RIB/FIB mess in the next 5 years, we've got more than enough headroom to allow aggregation to be a concern of the past.
So, just to be clear, you believe people will be turning off IPv4 in the next 5 years in sufficient numbers to free up space for IPv6 prefix growth?
Regards, -drc
On 3/12/2012 7:42 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
... Bottom line, if we can get rid of the massive IPv4 RIB/FIB mess in the next 5 years, we've got more than enough headroom to allow aggregation to be a concern of the past.
this assumes one of three things, none of which i expect.
so, you could get this result if ipv4 use declines "in the next 5 years" (or even "in the next 15 years").
or, you could get this result if the post-greenfield ipv4 address allocation system (a "market") leads to aggressive re-aggregation (whereas i'm expecting explosive de-aggregation).
or finally, you could get this result if a market occurs in RIB/FIB slots (which in turn led to re-aggregation.)
if i'm wrong and there's some other enabling assumption behind your prediction, please say more.
paul
On Mar 12, 2012, at 9:57 AM, paul vixie wrote:
On 3/12/2012 7:42 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
... Bottom line, if we can get rid of the massive IPv4 RIB/FIB mess in the next 5 years, we've got more than enough headroom to allow aggregation to be a concern of the past.
this assumes one of three things, none of which i expect.
so, you could get this result if ipv4 use declines "in the next 5 years" (or even "in the next 15 years").
or, you could get this result if the post-greenfield ipv4 address allocation system (a "market") leads to aggressive re-aggregation (whereas i'm expecting explosive de-aggregation).
Actually, as I have said many times before, I expect that the market will cause massive deaggregation in IPv4 which will likely force IPv4 use to decline as it will simply become infeasible to route.
or finally, you could get this result if a market occurs in RIB/FIB slots (which in turn led to re-aggregation.)
I don't expect this to occur. Rather, I expect IPv4 to quite probably collapse under its own weight due to market-based deaggregation.
if i'm wrong and there's some other enabling assumption behind your prediction, please say more.
Not really some other enabling assumption, just a different assumption about how the first two options you describe will interoperate.
Owen
On 3/12/2012 5:04 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Mar 12, 2012, at 9:57 AM, paul vixie wrote:
...
or, you could get this result if the post-greenfield ipv4 address allocation system (a "market") leads to aggressive re-aggregation (whereas i'm expecting explosive de-aggregation).
Actually, as I have said many times before, I expect that the market will cause massive deaggregation in IPv4 which will likely force IPv4 use to decline as it will simply become infeasible to route.
i don't think most dual stack network operators are using separate routers, nor routers having separate RIB or FIB resources, for IPv6. therefore if IPv4 explosively de-aggregates, it will hurt BGP stability for IPv4 and IPv6 equally.
i therefore see no back pressure against explosive IPv4 deaggregation, absent a new market in RIB/FIB slots. "steady state" in this case means a hunt-and-peck search for the point at which post-greenfield IPv4 space has vanishingly low market value because too many routers around the world are near their architectural capacity limits. i argue that none of us will enjoy that search process, possibly excepting router vendors and the largest ISP's who can afford to reinvest ahead of their normal depreciation cycle.
paul
On Mar 12, 2012, at 10:20 AM, paul vixie wrote:
On 3/12/2012 5:04 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Mar 12, 2012, at 9:57 AM, paul vixie wrote:
...
or, you could get this result if the post-greenfield ipv4 address allocation system (a "market") leads to aggressive re-aggregation (whereas i'm expecting explosive de-aggregation).
Actually, as I have said many times before, I expect that the market will cause massive deaggregation in IPv4 which will likely force IPv4 use to decline as it will simply become infeasible to route.
i don't think most dual stack network operators are using separate routers, nor routers having separate RIB or FIB resources, for IPv6. therefore if IPv4 explosively de-aggregates, it will hurt BGP stability for IPv4 and IPv6 equally.
i therefore see no back pressure against explosive IPv4 deaggregation, absent a new market in RIB/FIB slots. "steady state" in this case means a hunt-and-peck search for the point at which post-greenfield IPv4 space has vanishingly low market value because too many routers around the world are near their architectural capacity limits. i argue that none of us will enjoy that search process, possibly excepting router vendors and the largest ISP's who can afford to reinvest ahead of their normal depreciation cycle.
I don't see backpressure. I see explosion. In the aftermath of the explosion, cleanup crews will realize that there is no longer any feasible way to route IPv4 and the resulting IPv4 forwarding table will become less and less usable at such an alarming rate that people who wish to remain connected to the internet will have no choice but to move to IPv6.
Owen
On 3/12/2012 5:52 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Mar 12, 2012, at 10:20 AM, paul vixie wrote:
... i therefore see no back pressure against explosive IPv4 deaggregation, absent a new market in RIB/FIB slots. "steady state" in this case means a hunt-and-peck search for the point at which post-greenfield IPv4 space has vanishingly low market value because too many routers around the world are near their architectural capacity limits. i argue that none of us will enjoy that search process, possibly excepting router vendors and the largest ISP's who can afford to reinvest ahead of their normal depreciation cycle.
I don't see backpressure. I see explosion. In the aftermath of the explosion, cleanup crews will realize that there is no longer any feasible way to route IPv4 and the resulting IPv4 forwarding table will become less and less usable at such an alarming rate that people who wish to remain connected to the internet will have no choice but to move to IPv6.
that will not happen and cannot happen. current revenue and forecasted new revenue throughout and after an explosion of this kind, will be IPv4. that's what will be protected. if some network operators can make out-of-cycle upgrades to allow for 2M (or 4M or whatever) routes, and others say no this is crazy let's just switch to IPv6, then current and future revenue will move from the latter operators to the former.
thank you for explaining your assumptions in any case.
paul
On Mar 12, 2012, at 12:01 PM, paul vixie wrote:
On 3/12/2012 5:52 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Mar 12, 2012, at 10:20 AM, paul vixie wrote:
... i therefore see no back pressure against explosive IPv4 deaggregation, absent a new market in RIB/FIB slots.
Back pressure exists. Who has Sean Doran's phone number?
In the aftermath of the explosion, cleanup crews will realize that there is no longer any feasible way to route IPv4 and the resulting IPv4 forwarding table will become less and less usable at such an alarming rate that people who wish to remain connected to the internet will have no choice but to move to IPv6.
that will not happen and cannot happen.
Agreed.
Guys, we've been here before and we have the t-shirts. The end result of growth beyond deployed hardware limits was and is prefix length filters, proxy aggregation, etc. There is no magic bullet now just as there was no magic bullet in the mid-90s. IPv6 doesn't solve this problem, it just makes it worse since IPv6 routes do not replace IPv4 routes, but rather add to them.
Regards, -drc
explosive de-aggregation is not being seen. just the same old crap from asia-pac bad actors.
explosive routing table growth is not being seen.
all is conjecturbation.
randy
On 13/03/2012, at 10:28 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
explosive de-aggregation is not being seen. just the same old crap from asia-pac bad actors.
explosive routing table growth is not being seen.
all is conjecturbation.
I did some analysis of this in a presentation at APNIC 33
I agree with Randy that its not "explosive". Its not getting any worse - nor is it getting any better. 50% of the DFZ is more specifics from other advertisements in the DFZ, and this has been true for a decade now. More specific are no more volatile in terms of routing instability than aggregates.
But is it asia-pac? Not really as far as I can tell. I did not add country flags, but if you look at the CIDR report (www.cidr-report.org) I think you'd agree that there is not that much regional concentration in that list - the "bad actors" referred to above really do come from all over the world.
Could we do better? probably. But are we prepared to out some energy behind the wheel to do better? http://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog53/presentations/Tuesday/Woodrow.pdf has some interesting comments on this.
regards,
Geoff
Chief Scientist, APNIC
Given that: "APNIC is now the only RIR remaining with an absolute requirement for multihoming for portable address assignments." Do you disagree with all the other RIR implementations of this concept?
I am in support of passing this proposal as it stands currently. If it produces a significant increase in the global routing table, such that the operational stability of the region is jeopardised, I will co-author the proposal with you to overturn this.
I do not anticipate having to fulfil that function in the near future.
Dean
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 8:21 PM, Terence Zhang YH zhangyinghao@cnnic.cn wrote:
Hi David,
My concerns about prop-101 is not address consumption but route aggregation, I am afraid the popular use of portable assignments will make route aggregation less possible.
"2000 addresses or 200 /64s" seems to serve the 'conservation' purpose, but not the 'aggregation' purpose, I think we can explicitly define the situations where renumbering will result in a significant impact, which cannot be aviod technically.
Regards Terence
----- Original Message ----- From: David Woodgate To: Terence Zhang YH ; Owen DeLong Cc: sig-policy@apnic.net Sent: Friday, March 09, 2012 10:16 AM Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-101 Returned to mailing list and Newversionposted
Terence,
May I ask whether you consider that the ARIN criteria adequately meet your concerns? For example, if I cut and paste the ARIN criteria (especially the "2000 addresses or 200 /64s" criteria), would that be sufficient gain your support for the proposal?
Regards, David
At 12:32 PM 9/03/2012, Terence Zhang YH wrote:
What I mean is I support expanding the current portable assignment criterias (multihome, IXP, CI), but not to replace the current criterias with a 'reasonable justification'.
Regards Terence ----- Original Message ----- From: Owen DeLong To: Terence Zhang YH Cc: Dean Pemberton ; Randy Whitney ; sig-policy@apnic.net Sent: Friday, March 09, 2012 12:24 AM Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-101 Returned to mailing list and Newversionposted
I'm not sure I fully understand your concern here, Terrence. ARIN has been issuing portable /48 assignments for a few years now. I think it is a reasonable minimum end-user assignment for IPv6. Can you elaborate on what you mean by "a few exceptional"?
Owen
On Mar 8, 2012, at 5:26 AM, Terence Zhang YH wrote:
I don't object to allow a few exceptional /48 portable assignments, and I don't insist on the '2-year-expiration', but I suggest either define the 'reasonable justification' criterias explicitly & clearly or put in some safeguarding limit.
Regards Terence
----- Original Message ----- From: Dean Pemberton To: Randy Whitney Cc: sig-policy@apnic.net Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2012 11:14 AM Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-101 Returned to mailing list and Newversionposted
I too support this version of the proposal
On Thursday, March 8, 2012, Randy Whitney < randy.whitney@verizon.com> wrote:
I support this version of the proposal, which removes the controversial 4.E.e Sunset Clause from the text, while leaving the 4.E.d Reporting requirement.
Best Regards, Randy.
On 3/6/2012 8:20 PM, Masato Yamanishi wrote:
Dear SIG members
# I'm sending this notification on behalf of Andy Linton, Policy SIG chair
Version 3 of prop-101 Removing multihoming requirement for IPv6 portable assignments, did not reach consensus at the APNIC 33 Policy SIG. Therefore, this proposal is being returned to the author and the Policy SIG mailing list for further discussion.
The author has submitted a revised proposal, prop-101-v004, for further discussion on the Policy SIG mailing list.
Proposal details
This is a proposal to change the "IPv6 address allocation and assignment policy" to allow portable (that is, provider independent or PI) assignments of IPv6 address blocks to be made by APNIC to any organization with due justification and payment of standard fees, removing the current requirement that the requestor is or plans to be multihomed.
Proposal details including the full text of the proposal, history, and links to mailing list discussions are available at:
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-101
Regards
Andy, Skeeve, and Masato
prop-101-v004: Removing multihoming requirement for IPv6 portable assignments
- Introduction
This a proposal to change the "IPv6 address allocation and assignment policy" to allow portable (that is, provider independent or PI) assignments of IPv6 address blocks to be made by APNIC to any organization with due justification and payment of standard fees, removing the current requirement that the requestor is or plans to be multihomed.
- Summary of the current problem
Current APNIC policy only permits portable assignments of IPv6 addresses to be made to an organization "if it is currently multihomed or plans to be multihomed within three months." [1] This requirement may unnecessarily complicate the implementation of IPv6 in some networks that are large or complex and use static assignment of addresses. It is therefore proposed to remove this requirement.
IPv6 models tend to assume widespread assignment of registered IPv6 addresses to equipment throughout a network; so if provider assigned IPv6 addresses have been used in an organization's network, then any change of ISP would require a renumbering of the entire network. Such renumbering may be feasible if the network is small or dynamically assigned (for example, through use of prefix-delegation), but renumbering a large, statically-assigned network would be a significant operational challenge, and may not be practically possible.
Although it is likely that many large networks would be multihomed, there will be technical or commercial reasons why some will not be; currently those networks cannot obtain portable IPv6 assignments from APNIC, and would need to use assignments from their ISPs, and accept the associated difficulties of future renumbering if they do so. This consideration and complexity could significantly delay IPv6 use by the affected organisations, which is not desirable.
There is a risk that removing the multihoming requirement could cause a significant increase in demand for portable assignments, which in turn could cause the Internet routing tables to grow beyond manageable levels. It is not feasible to quickly generate any realistic model of likely demand increase which would arise from the proposed policy change, but it is argued that any such increase would only be of a scale to produce a manageable impact on global routing, for reasons including:
- Organizations would only be likely to seek portable addressing if they believed it were essential for their operations, as provider assigned > non-member agreement, under the standard terms& conditions and paying the standard fees applicable for their respective category.
B. An organization will be automatically eligible for a minimum IPv6 portable assignment if they have previously justified an IPv4 portable assignment from APNIC.
C. Requests by organizations that have not previously received an IPv4 portable assignment will need to be accompanied by:
(a) a reasonable technical justification indicating why IPv6 addresses from an ISP or other LIR are unsuitable - examples of suitable technical justifications may include (but are not limited to):
(i) Demonstration that the relevant network is statically addressed and of a size or complexity that would make IPv6 renumbering operationally impractical within an acceptable business period, together with evidence that dynamic or multiple addressing options are either not available from the relevant ISP or are unsuitable for use by the organization;
(ii) Demonstration that any future renumbering of the relevant network could potentially interfere with services of a critical medical or civic nature;
(b) A detailed plan of intended usage of the proposed address block over at least the 12 months following allocation.
D. The minimum IPv6 portable assignment to any organization is to be an address block of /48. A portable assignment of a larger block (that is, a block with a prefix mask less than /48) may be made:
(a) If it is needed to ensure that the HD-ratio for the planned network assignments from the block remains below the applied HD-ratio threshold specified in Section 5.3.1 of the APNIC IPv6 policy [6], or;
(b) If addressing is required for 2 or more of the organization's sites operating distinct and unconnected networks.
Any requests for address blocks larger than the minimum size will need to be accompanied by a detailed plan of the intended usage of the proposed assignment over at least the following 12 months.
E. In order to minimise routing table impacts:
(a) Only one IPv6 address block is to be given to an organization upon an initial request for a portable assignment; subnets of this block may be assigned by the organization to its different sites if needed;
(b) It is recommended that the APNIC Secretariat applies sparse allocation methodologies so that any subsequent requests from an organization for additional portable addressing would be accommodated where possible through a change of prefix mask of a previous assignment (for example, 2001:db8:1000::/48 -> ] 2001:db8:1000::/44), rather than through allocation of a new prefix. An additional prefix should only be allocated where it is not possible to simply change the prefix mask.
(c) Any subsequent request for an additional portable assignment to an organization must be accompanied by information demonstrating:
(i) Why an additional portable assignment is required, and why
-- Regards,
Dean
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
- sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy
* _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
I am in support of passing this proposal as it stands currently. If it produces a significant increase in the global routing table, such that the operational stability of the region is jeopardised, I will co-author the proposal with you to overturn this.
I do not anticipate having to fulfil that function in the near future.
no, only when it is too late.
have we been here before? can you say "ipv4 swamp space?"
otoh, in ipv4, idiotic/senseless de-aggregation, especially in asia-pac, has overtaken swamp space in the routing table bloat race.
randy
Hi,
[Dean]: "APNIC is now the only RIR remaining with an absolute requirement for multihoming for portable address assignments." Do you disagree with all the other RIR implementations of this concept?
[Terence]: First, the above is not fully accurate, under current APNIC policy, multihome, IXP and Criticical Infrastures are eligible for portable assignments, so multihome is not an absolute requirement.
Secondly, each RIR's situation is different, you should also notice that APNIC 's IPv4 portable assignment policy is also different with other RIRs(before and after final /8), take ARIN for example, I think the main reason they move to the current IPv6 portable assignement criterias is to keep it consistent with IPv4 portable assignment criterias, it's hard to explain to an organization that they are eligible for IPv4 PI but not IPv6 PI.
But APNIC don't have that situation, APNIC's IPv6 portable assignment criterias are consistent with IPv4 portable assignment criterias, and I don't see any issues raised about the IPv4 assignment policy.
[Dean]: that the operational stability of the region is jeopardised, I will co-author the proposal with you to overturn this.
[Terence]: I am afraid that's an one way street.
Regards Terence
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 8:21 PM, Terence Zhang YH zhangyinghao@cnnic.cn wrote:
Hi David,
My concerns about prop-101 is not address consumption but route aggregation, I am afraid the popular use of portable assignments will make route aggregation less possible.
"2000 addresses or 200 /64s" seems to serve the 'conservation' purpose, but not the 'aggregation' purpose, I think we can explicitly define the situations where renumbering will result in a significant impact, which cannot be aviod technically.
Regards Terence
----- Original Message ----- From: David Woodgate To: Terence Zhang YH ; Owen DeLong Cc: sig-policy@apnic.net Sent: Friday, March 09, 2012 10:16 AM Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-101 Returned to mailing list and Newversionposted
Terence,
May I ask whether you consider that the ARIN criteria adequately meet your concerns? For example, if I cut and paste the ARIN criteria (especially the "2000 addresses or 200 /64s" criteria), would that be sufficient gain your support for the proposal?
Regards, David
At 12:32 PM 9/03/2012, Terence Zhang YH wrote:
What I mean is I support expanding the current portable assignment criterias (multihome, IXP, CI), but not to replace the current criterias with a 'reasonable justification'.
Regards Terence ----- Original Message ----- From: Owen DeLong To: Terence Zhang YH Cc: Dean Pemberton ; Randy Whitney ; sig-policy@apnic.net Sent: Friday, March 09, 2012 12:24 AM Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-101 Returned to mailing list and Newversionposted
I'm not sure I fully understand your concern here, Terrence. ARIN has been issuing portable /48 assignments for a few years now. I think it is a reasonable minimum end-user assignment for IPv6. Can you elaborate on what you mean by "a few exceptional"?
Owen
On Mar 8, 2012, at 5:26 AM, Terence Zhang YH wrote:
I don't object to allow a few exceptional /48 portable assignments, and I don't insist on the '2-year-expiration', but I suggest either define the 'reasonable justification' criterias explicitly & clearly or put in some safeguarding limit.
Regards Terence
----- Original Message ----- From: Dean Pemberton To: Randy Whitney Cc: sig-policy@apnic.net Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2012 11:14 AM Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-101 Returned to mailing list and Newversionposted
I too support this version of the proposal
On Thursday, March 8, 2012, Randy Whitney < randy.whitney@verizon.com> wrote:
I support this version of the proposal, which removes the controversial 4.E.e Sunset Clause from the text, while leaving the 4.E.d Reporting requirement.
Best Regards, Randy.
On 3/6/2012 8:20 PM, Masato Yamanishi wrote:
Dear SIG members
# I'm sending this notification on behalf of Andy Linton, Policy SIG chair
Version 3 of prop-101 Removing multihoming requirement for IPv6 portable assignments, did not reach consensus at the APNIC 33 Policy SIG. Therefore, this proposal is being returned to the author and the Policy SIG mailing list for further discussion.
The author has submitted a revised proposal, prop-101-v004, for further discussion on the Policy SIG mailing list.
Proposal details
This is a proposal to change the "IPv6 address allocation and assignment policy" to allow portable (that is, provider independent or PI) assignments of IPv6 address blocks to be made by APNIC to any organization with due justification and payment of standard fees, removing the current requirement that the requestor is or plans to be multihomed.
Proposal details including the full text of the proposal, history, and links to mailing list discussions are available at:
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-101
Regards
Andy, Skeeve, and Masato
prop-101-v004: Removing multihoming requirement for IPv6 portable assignments
- Introduction
This a proposal to change the "IPv6 address allocation and assignment policy" to allow portable (that is, provider independent or PI) assignments of IPv6 address blocks to be made by APNIC to any organization with due justification and payment of standard fees, removing the current requirement that the requestor is or plans to be multihomed.
- Summary of the current problem
Current APNIC policy only permits portable assignments of IPv6 addresses to be made to an organization "if it is currently multihomed or plans to be multihomed within three months." [1] This requirement may unnecessarily complicate the implementation of IPv6 in some networks that are large or complex and use static assignment of addresses. It is therefore proposed to remove this requirement.
IPv6 models tend to assume widespread assignment of registered IPv6 addresses to equipment throughout a network; so if provider assigned IPv6 addresses have been used in an organization's network, then any change of ISP would require a renumbering of the entire network. Such renumbering may be feasible if the network is small or dynamically assigned (for example, through use of prefix-delegation), but renumbering a large, statically-assigned network would be a significant operational challenge, and may not be practically possible.
Although it is likely that many large networks would be multihomed, there will be technical or commercial reasons why some will not be; currently those networks cannot obtain portable IPv6 assignments from APNIC, and would need to use assignments from their ISPs, and accept the associated difficulties of future renumbering if they do so. This consideration and complexity could significantly delay IPv6 use by the affected organisations, which is not desirable.
There is a risk that removing the multihoming requirement could cause a significant increase in demand for portable assignments, which in turn could cause the Internet routing tables to grow beyond manageable levels. It is not feasible to quickly generate any realistic model of likely demand increase which would arise from the proposed policy change, but it is argued that any such increase would only be of a scale to produce a manageable impact on global routing, for reasons including:
- Organizations would only be likely to seek portable addressing if
they believed it were essential for their operations, as provider assigned > non-member agreement, under the standard terms& conditions and paying the standard fees applicable for their respective category.
B. An organization will be automatically eligible for a minimum IPv6 portable assignment if they have previously justified an IPv4 portable assignment from APNIC.
C. Requests by organizations that have not previously received an IPv4 portable assignment will need to be accompanied by:
(a) a reasonable technical justification indicating why IPv6 addresses from an ISP or other LIR are unsuitable - examples of suitable technical justifications may include (but are not limited to):
(i) Demonstration that the relevant network is statically addressed and of a size or complexity that would make IPv6 renumbering operationally impractical within an acceptable business period, together with evidence that dynamic or multiple addressing options are either not available from the relevant ISP or are unsuitable for use by the organization;
(ii) Demonstration that any future renumbering of the relevant network could potentially interfere with services of a critical medical or civic nature;
(b) A detailed plan of intended usage of the proposed address block over at least the 12 months following allocation.
D. The minimum IPv6 portable assignment to any organization is to be an address block of /48. A portable assignment of a larger block (that is, a block with a prefix mask less than /48) may be made:
(a) If it is needed to ensure that the HD-ratio for the planned network assignments from the block remains below the applied HD-ratio threshold specified in Section 5.3.1 of the APNIC IPv6 policy [6], or;
(b) If addressing is required for 2 or more of the organization's sites operating distinct and unconnected networks.
Any requests for address blocks larger than the minimum size will need to be accompanied by a detailed plan of the intended usage of the proposed assignment over at least the following 12 months.
E. In order to minimise routing table impacts:
(a) Only one IPv6 address block is to be given to an organization upon an initial request for a portable assignment; subnets of this block may be assigned by the organization to its different sites if needed;
(b) It is recommended that the APNIC Secretariat applies sparse allocation methodologies so that any subsequent requests from an organization for additional portable addressing would be accommodated where possible through a change of prefix mask of a previous assignment (for example, 2001:db8:1000::/48 -> ] 2001:db8:1000::/44), rather than through allocation of a new prefix. An additional prefix should only be allocated where it is not possible to simply change the prefix mask.
(c) Any subsequent request for an additional portable assignment to an organization must be accompanied by information demonstrating:
(i) Why an additional portable assignment is required, and why
-- Regards,
Dean
- sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management
policy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
- sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management
policy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
- sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management
policy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
- sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy
sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
Secondly, each RIR's situation is different, you should also notice that APNIC 's IPv4 portable assignment policy is also different with other RIRs(before and after final /8), take ARIN for example, I think the main reason they move to the current IPv6 portable assignement criterias is to keep it consistent with IPv4 portable assignment criterias, it's hard to explain to an organization that they are eligible for IPv4 PI but not IPv6 PI.
While I cannot speak for the rest of the AC, let alone the entire ARIN community, I will say that from my perspective, that is not correct. The current IPv6 PI policy in ARIN is significantly more relaxed than our IPv4 PI policy. Our previous IPv6 PI policy was actually much closer (and largely dependent upon) our IPv4 policy.
Much of the effort in developing the current IPv6 allocation and assignment policies in the ARIN region focused on removing the ties between IPv6 policy and IPv4 policy.
But APNIC don't have that situation, APNIC's IPv6 portable assignment criterias are consistent with IPv4 portable assignment criterias, and I don't see any issues raised about the IPv4 assignment policy.
But is that a good thing? Should they be? IPv6 is a very different ballgame from IPv4 and applying IPv4 scarcity mentality to IPv6 policy is actually harmful IMHO.
[Dean]: that the operational stability of the region is jeopardised, I will co-author the proposal with you to overturn this.
[Terence]: I am afraid that's an one way street.
And here is the crux of the matter. Fear of scarcity because of long history with IPv4 being in a state of scarcity is driving many of our IPv6 mistakes.
Owen
On 14/03/2012, at 7:59 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
And here is the crux of the matter. Fear of scarcity because of long history with IPv4 being in a state of scarcity is driving many of our IPv6 mistakes.
Possibly, but at the same time an irrational abandonment of consideration of scarcity leads to ridiculous allocations like the handful of /19 and /20s given early on in the process. Those allocations in turn then leads to friction with those who now won't get such huge blocks and so feel that once again they've been shut out of the developed world club.
One of the major lessons I've learned from running a registry is that we must treat resources as scarce, even if they are not, otherwise we run quickly into the tragedy of the commons as people take far more than they need and we end up with scarcity after all.
Jay
Owen
sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
Hi,
Jay wrote:
Possibly, but at the same time an irrational abandonment of consideration of scarcity leads to ridiculous allocations like the handful of /19 and /20s given early on in the process. Those allocations in turn then leads to friction with those who now won't get such huge blocks and so feel that once again they've been shut out of the developed world club.
Looking at the statistics published by APNIC I can see a good dusting or /26 and larger allocations over the last 18 months:
apnic|CN|ipv6|2408:8000::|22|20110707|allocated apnic|CN|ipv6|2409:8000::|20|20110823|allocated apnic|CN|ipv6|240e:100::|24|20111214|allocated apnic|CN|ipv6|240e:200::|23|20111214|allocated apnic|CN|ipv6|240e:400::|22|20111214|allocated apnic|CN|ipv6|240e:800::|21|20111214|allocated apnic|IN|ipv6|2402:ef00::|26|20120120|allocated
There are also a fair number of /31-/27 sized allocations.
It looks like you can still get a big block of IPv6 address space. You probably just need a big network to justify the allocation.
Regards,
Leo
On Mar 13, 2012, at 12:34 PM, Jay Daley wrote:
On 14/03/2012, at 7:59 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
And here is the crux of the matter. Fear of scarcity because of long history with IPv4 being in a state of scarcity is driving many of our IPv6 mistakes.
Possibly, but at the same time an irrational abandonment of consideration of scarcity leads to ridiculous allocations like the handful of /19 and /20s given early on in the process. Those allocations in turn then leads to friction with those who now won't get such huge blocks and so feel that once again they've been shut out of the developed world club.
Care to point to specific for-instances? I don't know of any actual cases of /19s or /20s that I would necessarily consider ridiculous.
I keep hearing of these mythical creatures in these debates, but, they almost always break down when I ask for specifics.
For example, the much-touted allocation to US DoD in the ARIN region is often characterized as a much larger allocation than it actually was because what was allocated to DoD was several much smaller blocks with a lot of holes in between the address blocks. Admittedly, those holes are being treated as a reservation which led to ARIN requesting additional space from IANA, but, the holes are not allocated to DoD and I expect in the future would start being issued to other organizations.
One of the major lessons I've learned from running a registry is that we must treat resources as scarce, even if they are not, otherwise we run quickly into the tragedy of the commons as people take far more than they need and we end up with scarcity after all.
I think we should hand out resources reasonably according to need. If we treat them as scarce, then we create different tragedies. It is a balancing act. Currently, IMHO, APNIC's IPv6 policy is out of balance and rather strongly weighted towards an IPv4 level scarcity mentality.
Several years ago, I observed an interesting and similar phenomenon in Russia while I was visiting. There were food shortages according to the news, the people I talked to, and just about every other information source you can imagine. If you went to a food store more than an hour after it opened, indeed, the shelves would be relatively barren.
However, each night, each of the stores was fully restocked. People's homes that I visited were so full of foods that they were having difficulty figuring out where to store things. However, because there were "shortages" everyone was running to the store each and every morning when they opened and buying as much food as they could possibly get their hands on. Of course this created the empty shelves that were viewed by the media in the afternoon creating the continuing story of shortages. The only people still at the stores to interview by the time the media showed up were the ones that arrived after the morning buying frenzy was over.
Owen
On 14/03/2012, at 10:43 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Mar 13, 2012, at 12:34 PM, Jay Daley wrote:
On 14/03/2012, at 7:59 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
And here is the crux of the matter. Fear of scarcity because of long history with IPv4 being in a state of scarcity is driving many of our IPv6 mistakes.
Possibly, but at the same time an irrational abandonment of consideration of scarcity leads to ridiculous allocations like the handful of /19 and /20s given early on in the process. Those allocations in turn then leads to friction with those who now won't get such huge blocks and so feel that once again they've been shut out of the developed world club.
Care to point to specific for-instances? I don't know of any actual cases of /19s or /20s that I would necessarily consider ridiculous.
Every /19 and /20.
Jay
I keep hearing of these mythical creatures in these debates, but, they almost always break down when I ask for specifics.
For example, the much-touted allocation to US DoD in the ARIN region is often characterized as a much larger allocation than it actually was because what was allocated to DoD was several much smaller blocks with a lot of holes in between the address blocks. Admittedly, those holes are being treated as a reservation which led to ARIN requesting additional space from IANA, but, the holes are not allocated to DoD and I expect in the future would start being issued to other organizations.
One of the major lessons I've learned from running a registry is that we must treat resources as scarce, even if they are not, otherwise we run quickly into the tragedy of the commons as people take far more than they need and we end up with scarcity after all.
I think we should hand out resources reasonably according to need. If we treat them as scarce, then we create different tragedies. It is a balancing act. Currently, IMHO, APNIC's IPv6 policy is out of balance and rather strongly weighted towards an IPv4 level scarcity mentality.
Several years ago, I observed an interesting and similar phenomenon in Russia while I was visiting. There were food shortages according to the news, the people I talked to, and just about every other information source you can imagine. If you went to a food store more than an hour after it opened, indeed, the shelves would be relatively barren.
However, each night, each of the stores was fully restocked. People's homes that I visited were so full of foods that they were having difficulty figuring out where to store things. However, because there were "shortages" everyone was running to the store each and every morning when they opened and buying as much food as they could possibly get their hands on. Of course this created the empty shelves that were viewed by the media in the afternoon creating the continuing story of shortages. The only people still at the stores to interview by the time the media showed up were the ones that arrived after the morning buying frenzy was over.
Owen
Owen,
On Mar 13, 2012, at 3:43 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
For example, the much-touted allocation to US DoD in the ARIN region is often characterized as a much larger allocation than it actually was because what was allocated to DoD was several much smaller blocks with a lot of holes in between the address blocks. Admittedly, those holes are being treated as a reservation which led to ARIN requesting additional space from IANA, but, the holes are not allocated to DoD and I expect in the future would start being issued to other organizations.
:-)
I would think that anyone looking at the DoD allocations objectively would think that either ARIN was incompetent and allocated multiple discontiguous prefixes to the same organization or the prefixes allocated were from a much larger block.
I, for one, don't think ARIN is incompetent.
Regards, -drc
On Mar 13, 2012, at 3:19 PM, David Conrad wrote:
Owen,
On Mar 13, 2012, at 3:43 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
For example, the much-touted allocation to US DoD in the ARIN region is often characterized as a much larger allocation than it actually was because what was allocated to DoD was several much smaller blocks with a lot of holes in between the address blocks. Admittedly, those holes are being treated as a reservation which led to ARIN requesting additional space from IANA, but, the holes are not allocated to DoD and I expect in the future would start being issued to other organizations.
:-)
I would think that anyone looking at the DoD allocations objectively would think that either ARIN was incompetent and allocated multiple discontiguous prefixes to the same organization or the prefixes allocated were from a much larger block.
I, for one, don't think ARIN is incompetent.
Regards, -drc
All allocations made by any RIR are from a much larger block.
I suspect that the discontiguous prefixes were at the (ahem request ahem) of the organization in question to support their idea of security through diversity. I don't have first hand knowledge or evidence to support that suspicion, but, I think under the circumstances it's pretty reasonable.
The assertion that this much larger block will not at some point have its holes filled in with allocations to other organizations is the assumption that I don't buy into on the part of people that want to pretend DoD was allocated/assigned the entire larger aggregate including the space not registered to them.
As you say, ARIN is not incompetent, so, I don't believe that they made a hidden registration to DoD by making pieces of it visible in registration records.
Owen
Hi
take ARIN for example, I think the main reason they move to the current IPv6 portable assignement criterias is to keep it consistent with IPv4 portable assignment criterias, it's hard to explain to an organization that they are eligible for IPv4 PI but not IPv6 PI
[Owen] While I cannot speak for the rest of the AC, let alone the entire ARIN community, I will say that from my perspective, that is not correct. The current IPv6 PI policy in ARIN is
[Terence] Sorry, I really should not make that comment about ARIN, but I have traced the discussion about 'Policy 2010-8: Rework of IPv6 assignment criteria' on the ' Policy Meeting Draft Transcript - 7 October 2010' I think it's the chair's language '...policies were becoming more consistent between assignments and allocations...'. Of course that doesn't reflect all the AC and the community's view. Any way, what I mean is if an organization is eligible for IPv4 PI but not IPv6 PI, it's a good reason to change the policy.
But APNIC don't have that situation, APNIC's IPv6 portable assignment criterias are consistent with IPv4 portable assignment criterias, and I don't see any issues raised about the IPv4 assignment policy.
[Owen] But is that a good thing? Should they be? IPv6 is a very different ballgame from IPv4 and applying IPv4 scarcity mentality to IPv6 policy is actually harmful IMHO.
[Terence] There is no concern about address scarcity here, the only concern is aggregation. Which has higher priority than conservation in IPv6 compared to IPv4.
Regards Terence
On Mar 14, 2012, at 4:47 AM, Terence Zhang YH wrote:
Hi
take ARIN for example, I think the main reason they move to the current IPv6 portable assignement criterias is to keep it consistent with IPv4 portable assignment criterias, it's hard to explain to an organization that they are eligible for IPv4 PI but not IPv6 PI
[Owen] While I cannot speak for the rest of the AC, let alone the entire ARIN community, I will say that from my perspective, that is not correct. The current IPv6 PI policy in ARIN is
[Terence] Sorry, I really should not make that comment about ARIN, but I have traced the discussion about 'Policy 2010-8: Rework of IPv6 assignment criteria' on the ' Policy Meeting Draft Transcript - 7 October 2010' I think it's the chair's language '...policies were becoming more consistent between assignments and allocations...'. Of course that doesn't reflect all the AC and the community's view. Any way, what I mean is if an organization is eligible for IPv4 PI but not IPv6 PI, it's a good reason to change the policy.
Yes, our IPv6 assignment and IPv6 allocations policies were becoming more consistent.
That has nothing to do with IPv4 allocation/assignment being more consistent with IPv6 allocation/assignment policies.
In ARIN, we classify IP registrations into two categories, depending on end-user vs. ISP/LIR. End users receive assignments and cannot subdivide them to make reallocations/reassignments to other organizations. They are subject to the end-user assignment policies. ISPs/LIRs receive allocations and can reallocate/reassign space to other organizations using SWIP or RWHOIS. They are subject to our ISP Allocation policies. The two groups are also subject to different fee structures.
I hope that clarifies the issue.
I agree that there should not be an instance where an organization qualifies for IPv4 but does not qualify for IPv6. Indeed, in the ARIN policy for both allocations and assignments, there is a clause that says "if you qualify for IPv4, then you automatically qualify for IPv6", but we also offer several other criteria by which organizations can qualify for IPv6 independent of any IPv4 status.
But APNIC don't have that situation, APNIC's IPv6 portable assignment criterias are consistent with IPv4 portable assignment criterias, and I don't see any issues raised about the IPv4 assignment policy.
[Owen] But is that a good thing? Should they be? IPv6 is a very different ballgame from IPv4 and applying IPv4 scarcity mentality to IPv6 policy is actually harmful IMHO.
[Terence] There is no concern about address scarcity here, the only concern is aggregation. Which has higher priority than conservation in IPv6 compared to IPv4.
Well, greater aggregation is preserved by more liberal allocation/assignment policies, IMHO.
Owen
We'd like to remind you all that this proposal was returned to the mailing list for discussion before the next meeting. It would be great to see some discussion on the list before we get much closer to the meeting in August.
Regards
Andy, Skeeve, and Masato
--- On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 2:20 PM, Masato Yamanishi <myamanis@japan-telecom.com
wrote:
Dear SIG members
# I'm sending this notification on behalf of Andy Linton, Policy SIG chair
Version 3 of prop-101 Removing multihoming requirement for IPv6 portable assignments, did not reach consensus at the APNIC 33 Policy SIG. Therefore, this proposal is being returned to the author and the Policy SIG mailing list for further discussion.
The author has submitted a revised proposal, prop-101-v004, for further discussion on the Policy SIG mailing list.
Proposal details
This is a proposal to change the "IPv6 address allocation and assignment policy" to allow portable (that is, provider independent or PI) assignments of IPv6 address blocks to be made by APNIC to any organization with due justification and payment of standard fees, removing the current requirement that the requestor is or plans to be multihomed.
Proposal details including the full text of the proposal, history, and links to mailing list discussions are available at:
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-101Regards
Andy, Skeeve, and Masato
prop-101-v004: Removing multihoming requirement for IPv6 portable assignments
- Introduction
This a proposal to change the "IPv6 address allocation and assignment policy" to allow portable (that is, provider independent or PI) assignments of IPv6 address blocks to be made by APNIC to any organization with due justification and payment of standard fees, removing the current requirement that the requestor is or plans to be multihomed.
- Summary of the current problem
Current APNIC policy only permits portable assignments of IPv6 addresses to be made to an organization "if it is currently multihomed or plans to be multihomed within three months." [1] This requirement may unnecessarily complicate the implementation of IPv6 in some networks that are large or complex and use static assignment of addresses. It is therefore proposed to remove this requirement.
IPv6 models tend to assume widespread assignment of registered IPv6 addresses to equipment throughout a network; so if provider assigned IPv6 addresses have been used in an organization's network, then any change of ISP would require a renumbering of the entire network. Such renumbering may be feasible if the network is small or dynamically assigned (for example, through use of prefix-delegation), but renumbering a large, statically-assigned network would be a significant operational challenge, and may not be practically possible.
Although it is likely that many large networks would be multihomed, there will be technical or commercial reasons why some will not be; currently those networks cannot obtain portable IPv6 assignments from APNIC, and would need to use assignments from their ISPs, and accept the associated difficulties of future renumbering if they do so. This consideration and complexity could significantly delay IPv6 use by the affected organisations, which is not desirable.
There is a risk that removing the multihoming requirement could cause a significant increase in demand for portable assignments, which in turn could cause the Internet routing tables to grow beyond manageable levels. It is not feasible to quickly generate any realistic model of likely demand increase which would arise from the proposed policy change, but it is argued that any such increase would only be of a scale to produce a manageable impact on global routing, for reasons including:
- Organizations would only be likely to seek portable addressing if they believed it were essential for their operations, as provider assigned IPv6 addressing would be likely to be offered automatically and at no additional cost with their Internet services from their ISP; - APNIC membership fees would be expected to naturally discourage unnecessary requests, as these would be a far greater cost than that for provider assigned addressing; - Many or most organizations that require portable addressing will be multihomed, so the demand increase caused by removing the multihomed requirement should be small; - Only a limited set of an ISP's products is likely to allow customers to use portable assignments if they are singly-homed.3.Situation in other RIRs
APNIC is now the only RIR remaining with an absolute requirement for multihoming for portable address assignments.
AfriNIC: The "Policy for IPv6 ProviderIndependent (PI) Assignment for End-Sites" [2] does not mention any requirement for multihoming;
ARIN: Section 6.5.8 of the "ARIN Number Resource Policy Manual" [3] only identifies multihoming as one of several alternative criteria for direct IPv6 assignment to end-user organizations;
LACNIC: There is no mention of multihoming anywhere in the IPv6 section (Section 4) of the current LACNIC Policy Manual (v1.8 - 07/12/2011) [4].
RIPE: The latest version (RIPE-545 [5]) published in January 2012 of the "IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy" does not mention multihoming, removing the requirement that existed in previous versions of the document.
4.Details
It is proposed that section 5.9.1 of APNIC's "IPv6 address allocation and assignment policy" (apnic-089-v010) is rewritten to remove the absolute multihoming requirement for portable assignments, and to incorporate the following conditions:
A. Portable IPv6 assignments are to be made only to organizations that have either joined APNIC as members or have signed the non-member agreement, under the standard terms & conditions and paying the standard fees applicable for their respective category.
B. An organization will be automatically eligible for a minimum IPv6 portable assignment if they have previously justified an IPv4 portable assignment from APNIC.
C. Requests by organizations that have not previously received an IPv4 portable assignment will need to be accompanied by:
(a) a reasonable technical justification indicating why IPv6 addresses from an ISP or other LIR are unsuitable - examples of suitable technical justifications may include (but are notlimited to):
(i) Demonstration that the relevant network is statically addressed and of a size or complexity that would make IPv6 renumbering operationally impractical within an acceptable business period, together with evidence that dynamic or multiple addressing options are either not available from the relevant ISP or are unsuitable for use by the organization; (ii) Demonstration that any future renumbering of the relevant network could potentially interfere with services of a critical medical or civic nature; (b) A detailed plan of intended usage of the proposed address block over at least the 12 months following allocation.D. The minimum IPv6 portable assignment to any organization is to be an address block of /48. A portable assignment of a larger block (that is, a block with a prefix mask less than /48) may be made:
(a) If it is needed to ensure that the HD-ratio for the planned network assignments from the block remains below the applied HD-ratio threshold specified in Section 5.3.1 of the APNIC IPv6 policy [6], or; (b) If addressing is required for 2 or more of the organization's sites operating distinct and unconnected networks. Any requests for address blocks larger than the minimum size will need to be accompanied by a detailed plan of the intended usage of the proposed assignment over at least the following 12 months.E. In order to minimise routing table impacts:
(a) Only one IPv6 address block is to be given to an organization upon an initial request for a portable assignment; subnets of this block may be assigned by the organization to its different sites if needed; (b) It is recommended that the APNIC Secretariat applies sparse allocation methodologies so that any subsequent requests from an organization for additional portable addressing would be accommodated where possible through a change of prefix mask of a previous assignment (for example, 2001:db8:1000::/48 -> ] 2001:db8:1000::/44), rather than through allocation of a new prefix. An additional prefix should only be allocated where it is not possible to simply change the prefix mask. (c) Any subsequent request for an additional portable assignment to an organization must be accompanied by information demonstrating: (i) Why an additional portable assignment is required, and why an assignment from from an ISP or other LIR cannot be used for this purpose instead; (ii) That the use of previous portable IPv6 allocations generated the minimum possible number of global routing announcements and the maximum aggregation of that block; (iii) How the additional assignment would be managed to minimise the growth of the global IPv6 routing table. (d) The APNIC Secretariat will produce reports of the number of portable IPv6 assignments requested, preferably as an automatically-generated daily graph of the number of cumulative IPv6 portable assignments published publically on the APNIC website, or else as regular (at a minimum, quarterly) reports sent to the sig-policy mailing list detailing the incremental assignments of new IPv6 portable assignments made since the last report, plus the cumulative total of IPv6 portable assignments.5.Pros/Cons
Advantages:
- This proposal would provide access to portable IPv6 addresses for all organizations with valid needs, removing a potential impediment to industry standard IPv6 addressing for large singly-homed networks - This change would align APNIC with the policies of all other RIRs on portable assignmentsDisadvantages:
- There would be a risk of an unmanageably large increase in global IPv6 routing table size and APNIC workload if there were to be a substantial and widespread increase in demand for portable assignments arising from the removal of the multihoming requirement - But demand is expected to be limited by the requirements specified in section 4 for justifications and APNIC standard fees, as well as other industry factors such as the capability of Internet services to support portable addressing.6.Effect on APNIC
The impact of this proposal on the APNIC Secretariat would depend on the increase of demand for portable assignments. Even if demand is eventually large, it is unlikely that there will be an significant change in hostmaster workloads for a long time because of the slow rate of take up of IPv6, and so there should be sufficient time to identify and take steps to modify policies and processes if necessary to manage the increase.
7.Effect on NIRs
This proposal specifically applies to portable assignments made by APNIC. It would be the choice of each NIR as to whether they would adopt a similar policy.
References:
[1] Section 5.9.1, IPv6 address allocation and assignment policy, http://www.apnic.net/policy/ipv6-address-policy#5.9 [2] http://www.afrinic.net/docs/policies/AFPUB-2007-v6-001.htm [3] https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#six58 [4] http://www.lacnic.net/en/politicas/manual5.html [5] http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-545 [6]Section 5.3.1, IPv6 address allocation and assignment policy, http://www.apnic.net/policy/ipv6-address-policy#5.3
Sig-policy-chair mailing list Sig-policy-chair@apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy-chair
sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy
sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
Now that version 004 of this policy has removed the sunset clause, I support this proposal.
Regards Dean
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 5:55 PM, Andy Linton asjl@lpnz.org wrote:
We'd like to remind you all that this proposal was returned to the mailing list for discussion before the next meeting. It would be great to see some discussion on the list before we get much closer to the meeting in August.
Regards
Andy, Skeeve, and Masato
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 2:20 PM, Masato Yamanishi myamanis@japan-telecom.com wrote:
Dear SIG members
# I'm sending this notification on behalf of Andy Linton, Policy SIG chair
Version 3 of prop-101 Removing multihoming requirement for IPv6 portable assignments, did not reach consensus at the APNIC 33 Policy SIG. Therefore, this proposal is being returned to the author and the Policy SIG mailing list for further discussion.
The author has submitted a revised proposal, prop-101-v004, for further discussion on the Policy SIG mailing list.
Proposal details
This is a proposal to change the "IPv6 address allocation and assignment policy" to allow portable (that is, provider independent or PI) assignments of IPv6 address blocks to be made by APNIC to any organization with due justification and payment of standard fees, removing the current requirement that the requestor is or plans to be multihomed.
Proposal details including the full text of the proposal, history, and links to mailing list discussions are available at:
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-101
Regards
Andy, Skeeve, and Masato
prop-101-v004: Removing multihoming requirement for IPv6 portable assignments
- Introduction
This a proposal to change the "IPv6 address allocation and assignment policy" to allow portable (that is, provider independent or PI) assignments of IPv6 address blocks to be made by APNIC to any organization with due justification and payment of standard fees, removing the current requirement that the requestor is or plans to be multihomed.
- Summary of the current problem
Current APNIC policy only permits portable assignments of IPv6 addresses to be made to an organization "if it is currently multihomed or plans to be multihomed within three months." [1] This requirement may unnecessarily complicate the implementation of IPv6 in some networks that are large or complex and use static assignment of addresses. It is therefore proposed to remove this requirement.
IPv6 models tend to assume widespread assignment of registered IPv6 addresses to equipment throughout a network; so if provider assigned IPv6 addresses have been used in an organization's network, then any change of ISP would require a renumbering of the entire network. Such renumbering may be feasible if the network is small or dynamically assigned (for example, through use of prefix-delegation), but renumbering a large, statically-assigned network would be a significant operational challenge, and may not be practically possible.
Although it is likely that many large networks would be multihomed, there will be technical or commercial reasons why some will not be; currently those networks cannot obtain portable IPv6 assignments from APNIC, and would need to use assignments from their ISPs, and accept the associated difficulties of future renumbering if they do so. This consideration and complexity could significantly delay IPv6 use by the affected organisations, which is not desirable.
There is a risk that removing the multihoming requirement could cause a significant increase in demand for portable assignments, which in turn could cause the Internet routing tables to grow beyond manageable levels. It is not feasible to quickly generate any realistic model of likely demand increase which would arise from the proposed policy change, but it is argued that any such increase would only be of a scale to produce a manageable impact on global routing, for reasons including:
- Organizations would only be likely to seek portable addressing if they believed it were essential for their operations, as provider assigned IPv6 addressing would be likely to be offered automatically and at no additional cost with their Internet services from their ISP;
- APNIC membership fees would be expected to naturally discourage unnecessary requests, as these would be a far greater cost than that for provider assigned addressing;
- Many or most organizations that require portable addressing will be multihomed, so the demand increase caused by removing the multihomed requirement should be small;
- Only a limited set of an ISP's products is likely to allow customers to use portable assignments if they are singly-homed.
3.Situation in other RIRs
APNIC is now the only RIR remaining with an absolute requirement for multihoming for portable address assignments.
AfriNIC: The "Policy for IPv6 ProviderIndependent (PI) Assignment for End-Sites" [2] does not mention any requirement for multihoming;
ARIN: Section 6.5.8 of the "ARIN Number Resource Policy Manual" [3] only identifies multihoming as one of several alternative criteria for direct IPv6 assignment to end-user organizations;
LACNIC: There is no mention of multihoming anywhere in the IPv6 section (Section 4) of the current LACNIC Policy Manual (v1.8 - 07/12/2011) [4].
RIPE: The latest version (RIPE-545 [5]) published in January 2012 of the "IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy" does not mention multihoming, removing the requirement that existed in previous versions of the document.
4.Details
It is proposed that section 5.9.1 of APNIC's "IPv6 address allocation and assignment policy" (apnic-089-v010) is rewritten to remove the absolute multihoming requirement for portable assignments, and to incorporate the following conditions:
A. Portable IPv6 assignments are to be made only to organizations that have either joined APNIC as members or have signed the non-member agreement, under the standard terms & conditions and paying the standard fees applicable for their respective category.
B. An organization will be automatically eligible for a minimum IPv6 portable assignment if they have previously justified an IPv4 portable assignment from APNIC.
C. Requests by organizations that have not previously received an IPv4 portable assignment will need to be accompanied by:
(a) a reasonable technical justification indicating why IPv6 addresses from an ISP or other LIR are unsuitable - examples of suitable technical justifications may include (but are not limited to):
(i) Demonstration that the relevant network is statically addressed and of a size or complexity that would make IPv6 renumbering operationally impractical within an acceptable business period, together with evidence that dynamic or multiple addressing options are either not available from the relevant ISP or are unsuitable for use by the organization;
(ii) Demonstration that any future renumbering of the relevant network could potentially interfere with services of a critical medical or civic nature;
(b) A detailed plan of intended usage of the proposed address block over at least the 12 months following allocation.
D. The minimum IPv6 portable assignment to any organization is to be an address block of /48. A portable assignment of a larger block (that is, a block with a prefix mask less than /48) may be made:
(a) If it is needed to ensure that the HD-ratio for the planned network assignments from the block remains below the applied HD-ratio threshold specified in Section 5.3.1 of the APNIC IPv6 policy [6], or;
(b) If addressing is required for 2 or more of the organization's sites operating distinct and unconnected networks.
Any requests for address blocks larger than the minimum size will need to be accompanied by a detailed plan of the intended usage of the proposed assignment over at least the following 12 months.
E. In order to minimise routing table impacts:
(a) Only one IPv6 address block is to be given to an organization upon an initial request for a portable assignment; subnets of this block may be assigned by the organization to its different sites if needed;
(b) It is recommended that the APNIC Secretariat applies sparse allocation methodologies so that any subsequent requests from an organization for additional portable addressing would be accommodated where possible through a change of prefix mask of a previous assignment (for example, 2001:db8:1000::/48 -> ] 2001:db8:1000::/44), rather than through allocation of a new prefix. An additional prefix should only be allocated where it is not possible to simply change the prefix mask.
(c) Any subsequent request for an additional portable assignment to an organization must be accompanied by information demonstrating:
(i) Why an additional portable assignment is required, and why an assignment from from an ISP or other LIR cannot be used for this purpose instead;
(ii) That the use of previous portable IPv6 allocations generated the minimum possible number of global routing announcements and the maximum aggregation of that block;
(iii) How the additional assignment would be managed to minimise the growth of the global IPv6 routing table.
(d) The APNIC Secretariat will produce reports of the number of portable IPv6 assignments requested, preferably as an automatically-generated daily graph of the number of cumulative IPv6 portable assignments published publically on the APNIC website, or else as regular (at a minimum, quarterly) reports sent to the sig-policy mailing list detailing the incremental assignments of new IPv6 portable assignments made since the last report, plus the cumulative total of IPv6 portable assignments.
5.Pros/Cons
Advantages:
- This proposal would provide access to portable IPv6 addresses for all organizations with valid needs, removing a potential impediment to industry standard IPv6 addressing for large singly-homed networks
- This change would align APNIC with the policies of all other RIRs on portable assignments
Disadvantages:
- There would be a risk of an unmanageably large increase in global IPv6 routing table size and APNIC workload if there were to be a substantial and widespread increase in demand for portable assignments arising from the removal of the multihoming requirement
- But demand is expected to be limited by the requirements specified in section 4 for justifications and APNIC standard fees, as well as other industry factors such as the capability of Internet services to support portable addressing.
6.Effect on APNIC
The impact of this proposal on the APNIC Secretariat would depend on the increase of demand for portable assignments. Even if demand is eventually large, it is unlikely that there will be an significant change in hostmaster workloads for a long time because of the slow rate of take up of IPv6, and so there should be sufficient time to identify and take steps to modify policies and processes if necessary to manage the increase.
7.Effect on NIRs
This proposal specifically applies to portable assignments made by APNIC. It would be the choice of each NIR as to whether they would adopt a similar policy.
References:
[1] Section 5.9.1, IPv6 address allocation and assignment policy, http://www.apnic.net/policy/ipv6-address-policy#5.9 [2] http://www.afrinic.net/docs/policies/AFPUB-2007-v6-001.htm [3] https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#six58 [4] http://www.lacnic.net/en/politicas/manual5.html [5] http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-545 [6]Section 5.3.1, IPv6 address allocation and assignment policy, http://www.apnic.net/policy/ipv6-address-policy#5.3
Sig-policy-chair mailing list Sig-policy-chair@apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy-chair
- sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy
* _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
- sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy
* _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
Another vote of support from me. I've just caught up on much of the recent debate and don't see how an organisation large enough to have an AS and its own prefix, will have a hit on the routing tables that we aren't going to necessarily see anyway. I guess the only catch is going to be where anyone disputes the 'due justification' and the qualification of that by APNIC.
Mark.
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 10:06 AM, Dean Pemberton dean@deanpemberton.comwrote:
Now that version 004 of this policy has removed the sunset clause, I support this proposal.
Regards Dean
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 5:55 PM, Andy Linton asjl@lpnz.org wrote:
We'd like to remind you all that this proposal was returned to the
mailing
list for discussion before the next meeting. It would be great to see
some
discussion on the list before we get much closer to the meeting in
August.
Regards
Andy, Skeeve, and Masato
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 2:20 PM, Masato Yamanishi myamanis@japan-telecom.com wrote:
Dear SIG members
# I'm sending this notification on behalf of Andy Linton, Policy SIG
chair
Version 3 of prop-101 Removing multihoming requirement for IPv6 portable assignments, did not reach consensus at the APNIC 33 Policy SIG. Therefore, this proposal is being returned to the author and the Policy SIG mailing list for further discussion.
The author has submitted a revised proposal, prop-101-v004, for further discussion on the Policy SIG mailing list.
Proposal details
This is a proposal to change the "IPv6 address allocation and assignment policy" to allow portable (that is, provider independent or PI) assignments of IPv6 address blocks to be made by APNIC to any organization with due justification and payment of standard fees, removing the current requirement that the requestor is or plans to be multihomed.
Just catching up, so sorry for the delay. I also support this version of the proposal.
Regards, Randy.
On 6/3/2012 6:13 PM, Mark Foster wrote:
Another vote of support from me. I've just caught up on much of the recent debate and don't see how an organisation large enough to have an AS and its own prefix, will have a hit on the routing tables that we aren't going to necessarily see anyway. I guess the only catch is going to be where anyone disputes the 'due justification' and the qualification of that by APNIC.
Mark.
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 10:06 AM, Dean Pemberton <dean@deanpemberton.com mailto:dean@deanpemberton.com> wrote:
Now that version 004 of this policy has removed the sunset clause, I support this proposal. Regards Dean On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 5:55 PM, Andy Linton <asjl@lpnz.org <mailto:asjl@lpnz.org>> wrote: > We'd like to remind you all that this proposal was returned to the mailing > list for discussion before the next meeting. It would be great to see some > discussion on the list before we get much closer to the meeting in August. > > Regards > > Andy, Skeeve, and Masato > > --- > On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 2:20 PM, Masato Yamanishi > <myamanis@japan-telecom.com <mailto:myamanis@japan-telecom.com>> wrote: >> >> Dear SIG members >> >> # I'm sending this notification on behalf of Andy Linton, Policy SIG chair >> >> Version 3 of prop-101 Removing multihoming requirement for IPv6 portable >> assignments, did not reach consensus at the APNIC 33 Policy SIG. >> Therefore, this proposal is being returned to the author >> and the Policy SIG mailing list for further discussion. >> >> The author has submitted a revised proposal, prop-101-v004, for further >> discussion on the Policy SIG mailing list. >> >> >> Proposal details >> --------------------- >> >> This is a proposal to change the "IPv6 address allocation and assignment >> policy" to allow portable (that is, provider independent or PI) >> assignments of IPv6 address blocks to be made by APNIC to any >> organization with due justification and payment of standard fees, >> removing the current requirement that the requestor is or plans to be >> multihomed. >>
Activity Summary
- 4113 days inactive
- 4113 days old
- sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
- 14 participants
- 33 comments