Keyboard Shortcuts
Thread View
j: Next unread messagek: Previous unread messagej a: Jump to all threadsj l: Jump to MailingList overview
Dear SIG members
Version 003 of the proposal "prop-101: Sparse allocation guidelines for IPv6 resource allocations" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.
This new version of the proposal reflects feedback from the community received on the Policy SIG mailing list:
- Section 4 now includes two additional clauses at (d) and (e)
The proposal text is available below or at the following URL:
Information about this and other policy proposals is available from:
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals
Regards,
Andy, Skeeve, and Masato
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
prop-101-v003: 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.
4Details ---------------
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 eligible for a portable assignment if they have previously justified an IPv4 portable assignment from APNIC.
C. A request for an IPv6 portable assignment will need to be accompanied by a reasonable technical justification indicating why IPv6 addresses from an ISP or other LIR are unsuitable.
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:
(i) 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;
(ii) If addressing is required for 2 or more of the organization's sites operating distinct and unconnected networks.
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.
(e) The first Policy SIG meeting of 2014 (expected to be APNIC Meeting 35) will as an agenda item consider the observed rate of IPv6 portable assignments and potential 10-year forecasts of growth of portable assignments prepared by the APNIC Secretariat extrapolated on the observed data, and by consensus consider the question "Should the IPv6 portable assignment criteria revert to requiring multihoming?"
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
I strongly supported version 002 of this proposal.
I agree with point (d) and I would support with a proposal which contained it. I disagree with point (e) as it stands and I would not support with any policy which contained a similar clause.
I believe that placing a sunset clause on this policy sets a bad precedent. As mentioned by the APNIC secretariat, there has been no example of this being done on any previous proposal.
As mentioned by David during the meeting, there is nothing to stop any other proposal being raised which would repeal prop-101 if a situation arose.
As such I do not support version 003 of prop-101.
Regards, Dean
On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 9:54 PM, Andy Linton asjl@lpnz.org wrote:
Dear SIG members
Version 003 of the proposal "prop-101: Sparse allocation guidelines for IPv6 resource allocations" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.
This new version of the proposal reflects feedback from the community received on the Policy SIG mailing list:
- Section 4 now includes two additional clauses at (d) and (e)
The proposal text is available below or at the following URL:
Information about this and other policy proposals is available from:
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals
Regards,
Andy, Skeeve, and Masato
prop-101-v003: 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.
- 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.
4Details
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 eligible for a portable assignment if they have previously justified an IPv4 portable assignment from APNIC.
C. A request for an IPv6 portable assignment will need to be accompanied by a reasonable technical justification indicating why IPv6 addresses from an ISP or other LIR are unsuitable.
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:
(i) 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;
(ii) If addressing is required for 2 or more of the organization's sites operating distinct and unconnected networks.
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.
(e) The first Policy SIG meeting of 2014 (expected to be APNIC Meeting 35) will as an agenda item consider the observed rate of IPv6 portable assignments and potential 10-year forecasts of growth of portable assignments prepared by the APNIC Secretariat extrapolated on the observed data, and by consensus consider the question "Should the IPv6 portable assignment criteria revert to requiring multihoming?"
- 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.
- 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.
- 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: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
On 3/1/2012 1:07 AM, Dean Pemberton wrote:
I strongly supported version 002 of this proposal.
I agree with point (d) and I would support with a proposal which contained it. I disagree with point (e) as it stands and I would not support with any policy which contained a similar clause.
I believe that placing a sunset clause on this policy sets a bad precedent. As mentioned by the APNIC secretariat, there has been no example of this being done on any previous proposal.
As mentioned by David during the meeting, there is nothing to stop any other proposal being raised which would repeal prop-101 if a situation arose.
As such I do not support version 003 of prop-101.
I agree with Dean. I was quite comfortable with v002 of prop-101.
I'm indifferent about the reporting requirement (d), but I absolutely think that the sunset clause is inappropriate. If we feel in the future [and what if that future is in one year, rather than two?] that the policy is not working out, we propose a new policy and replace it.
I would point out that anyone today who wishes to obtain a PI IPv6 prefix can simply dual home via a tunnel - so this policy is hardly likely to substantially increase the size of the IPv6 RIB given that anyone can obtain a prefix anyway. This just formalizes and simplifies that process.
For the operators who are concerned by this policy I'd really like to understand what those concerns are in more detail.
regards, aj
Concur. (d) would be nice, but does not specifically strengthen or weaken the policy itself. (e) I am opposed to.
I would support v002 or v002 + (d) but not v003 as a whole. -- Randy.
On 3/1/2012 2:48 PM, Alastair Johnson wrote:
On 3/1/2012 1:07 AM, Dean Pemberton wrote:
I strongly supported version 002 of this proposal.
I agree with point (d) and I would support with a proposal which contained it. I disagree with point (e) as it stands and I would not support with any policy which contained a similar clause.
I believe that placing a sunset clause on this policy sets a bad precedent. As mentioned by the APNIC secretariat, there has been no example of this being done on any previous proposal.
As mentioned by David during the meeting, there is nothing to stop any other proposal being raised which would repeal prop-101 if a situation arose.
As such I do not support version 003 of prop-101.
I agree with Dean. I was quite comfortable with v002 of prop-101.
I'm indifferent about the reporting requirement (d), but I absolutely think that the sunset clause is inappropriate. If we feel in the future [and what if that future is in one year, rather than two?] that the policy is not working out, we propose a new policy and replace it.
I would point out that anyone today who wishes to obtain a PI IPv6 prefix can simply dual home via a tunnel - so this policy is hardly likely to substantially increase the size of the IPv6 RIB given that anyone can obtain a prefix anyway. This just formalizes and simplifies that process.
For the operators who are concerned by this policy I'd really like to understand what those concerns are in more detail.
regards, aj
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
Regards,
Aftab A. Siddiqui
I strongly supported version 002 of this proposal.
I agree with point (d) and I would support with a proposal which contained it.
I disagree with point (e) as it stands and I would not support with
any policy which contained a similar clause.
I believe that placing a sunset clause on this policy sets a bad
precedent. As mentioned by the APNIC secretariat, there has been no
example of this being done on any previous proposal.
As mentioned by David during the meeting, there is nothing to stop any
other proposal being raised which would repeal prop-101 if a situation
arose.
As such I do not support version 003 of prop-101.
Regards,
Dean
--
On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 9:54 PM, Andy Linton <asjl@lpnz.org> wrote:
> Dear SIG members
>
> Version 003 of the proposal "prop-101: Sparse allocation guidelines for
> IPv6 resource allocations" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.
>
> This new version of the proposal reflects feedback from the community
> received on the Policy SIG mailing list:
>
> - Section 4 now includes two additional clauses at (d) and (e)
>
> The proposal text is available below or at the following URL:
>
>
> Information about this and other policy proposals is available from:
>
> http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Andy, Skeeve, and Masato
>
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> prop-101-v003: 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.
>
>
> 4Details
> ---------------
>
> 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 eligible for a portable assignment if they
> have previously justified an IPv4 portable assignment from APNIC.
>
> C. A request for an IPv6 portable assignment will need to be
> accompanied by a reasonable technical justification indicating why IPv6
> addresses from an ISP or other LIR are unsuitable.
>
> 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:
>
> (i) 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;
>
> (ii) If addressing is required for 2 or more of the organization's
> sites operating distinct and unconnected networks.
>
>
> 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.
>
>
> (e) The first Policy SIG meeting of 2014 (expected to be APNIC
> Meeting 35) will as an agenda item consider the observed rate of IPv6
> portable assignments and potential 10-year forecasts of growth of
> portable assignments prepared by the APNIC Secretariat extrapolated on
> the observed data, and by consensus consider the question "Should the
> IPv6 portable assignment criteria revert to requiring multihoming?"
>
>
>
> 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: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
> _______________________________________________
> sig-policy mailing list
> sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
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 too supported version 002 of this proposal. I have no issue with the reporting requirements suggested in this version 003, but like Dean, I disagree strongly with the sunset clause (e)
Regards
Mike
-----Original Message----- From: sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net [mailto:sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net] On Behalf Of Dean Pemberton Sent: Thursday, 1 March 2012 22:08 To: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net Subject: Re: [sig-policy] New Version: prop-101-v003: Removing multihoming requirement for IPv6 portable assignments
I strongly supported version 002 of this proposal.
I agree with point (d) and I would support with a proposal which contained it. I disagree with point (e) as it stands and I would not support with any policy which contained a similar clause.
I believe that placing a sunset clause on this policy sets a bad precedent. As mentioned by the APNIC secretariat, there has been no example of this being done on any previous proposal.
As mentioned by David during the meeting, there is nothing to stop any other proposal being raised which would repeal prop-101 if a situation arose.
As such I do not support version 003 of prop-101.
Regards, Dean
On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 9:54 PM, Andy Linton asjl@lpnz.org wrote:
Dear SIG members
Version 003 of the proposal "prop-101: Sparse allocation
guidelines
for IPv6 resource allocations" has been sent to the Policy SIG
for review.
This new version of the proposal reflects feedback from the
community
received on the Policy SIG mailing list:
- Section 4 now includes two additional clauses at
(d) and (e)
The proposal text is available below or at the following URL:
Information about this and other policy proposals is available from:
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals
Regards,
Andy, Skeeve, and Masato
prop-101-v003: 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.
- 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.
4Details
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 eligible for a portable
assignment if they
have previously justified an IPv4 portable assignment from APNIC.
C. A request for an IPv6 portable assignment will need to be accompanied by a reasonable technical justification indicating why IPv6 addresses from an ISP or other LIR are unsuitable.
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:
(i) 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;
(ii) If addressing is required for 2 or more of the
organization's
sites operating distinct and unconnected networks.
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.
(e) The first Policy SIG meeting of 2014 (expected to be APNIC Meeting 35) will as an agenda item consider the observed
rate of IPv6
portable assignments and potential 10-year forecasts of growth of portable assignments prepared by the APNIC Secretariat
extrapolated on
the observed data, and by consensus consider the question
"Should the
IPv6 portable assignment criteria revert to requiring multihoming?"
- 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.
- 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.
- 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: APNIC SIG on resource
management policy
sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
-- Regards,
Dean
sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource managementpolicy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
The information contained in this Internet Email message is intended for the addressee only and may contain privileged information, but not necessarily the official views or opinions of the New Zealand Defence Force. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, disclose, copy or distribute this message or the information in it.
If you have received this message in error, please Email or telephone the sender immediately.
Activity Summary
- 4293 days inactive
- 4293 days old
- sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
- 6 participants
- 5 comments