j: Next unread message
k: Previous unread message
j a: Jump to all threads
j l: Jump to MailingList overview
Dear SIG members
Version 2 of the proposal 'Alternative criteria for subsequent IPv6 allocations' has been sent to the Policy SIG for review. It will be presented at the Policy SIG at APNIC 29 in Kuala Lumpur, on Thursday 4 March 2010.
Information about this and other policy proposals is available from:
This new version of the proposal reflects feedback from the community received on the Policy SIG mailing list:
- Section 3 has been updated to show the most recent status of similar discussions in other RIRs.
- Section 4.2 has been updated to incorporate community feedback.
- There are additional references in section 8.
We encourage you to express your views on the proposal:
- Do you support or oppose this proposal? - Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear? - What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more effective?
Randy, Ching-Heng, and Terence
prop-083-v002: Alternative criteria for subsequent IPv6 allocations ___________________________________________________________________
Author: Skeeve Stevens firstname.lastname@example.org
Date: 2 March 2010
1. Introduction ----------------
This is a proposal to enable current APNIC account holders with existing IPv6 allocations to receive subsequent IPv6 allocations from APNIC for use in networks that are not connected to the initial IPv6 allocation.
2. Summary of current problem ------------------------------
An APNIC account holder with an existing /32 IPv6 allocation (or larger) is unable to deaggregate that allocation into routes smaller than a /32 due to the community practice of 'filter blocking' or 'bogon lists' associated with RIR blocks which are known to have a minimum allocation size of /32 .
An LIR may want to build a network in a separate location and provide IPv6 connectivity; however, because the LIR risks routability problems if they deaggregate, they cannot use a subset of their initial allocation in the new location.
An ISP has a /32 allocation which they announce via an upstream in New Zealand. The ISP wants to build a new network in Singapore. The ISP's new network in Singapore is not connected to the existing New Zealand network and the ISP is using a local transit provider to obtain dual stacked connectivity.
If the network was using IPv4 addresses, the ISP would usually be able to deaggregate their allocation and announce one part of the deaggregated range to the local transit provider.
In IPv6, however, this is not possible due to 'community filtering' on ranges smaller than a /32.
Such a filter may look like the following:
ipv6 prefix-list ipv6-ebgp-strict permit 2400::/12 ge 19 le 32
This above statement in the IPv6 BGP filter recommendations would cause any announcements by an ISP which had an allocation, such as 2400:0000::/32, to announce smaller routes from that block, such as multiple /35s for example, to be filtered. In a default free situation, connectivity to the ISP would be problematic.
Instead, the ISP needs to obtain a new /32 allocation to be able to have IPv6 connectivity in the new location with an independent (from their primary network) transit provider.
3. Situation in other RIRs ---------------------------
AfriNIC and LACNIC currently have no similar policies or proposals.
A similar policy, 2009-5 has been adopted  and integrated into the ARIN Number Resource Policy Manual.
A similar policy, 2009-5  was rejected in favor of 2009-6 . RIPE's 2009-6 recommended that routing announcements requirements be relaxed so that LIRs can announce smaller (i.e. if they have a /32, they can announce a /35) prefixes. APNIC prop-082 is basically the same, but does not address this issue covered by this policy proposal (prop-083).
4. Details of the proposal ---------------------------
4.1 It is proposed that alternative criteria be added to the subsequent IPv6 allocation policy  to allow current APNIC account holders with networks in multiple locations but without a connecting infrastructure to obtain IPv6 resources for each location.
4.2 To qualify for subsequent IPv6 allocations under the proposed alternative criteria, account holders must: - Be a current APNIC account holder with an existing IPv6 allocation
- Be announcing its existing IPv6 allocation
- Have a compelling reason for establishing a separate network which is not connected to the network of the initial allocation. Examples of acceptable reasons for requesting resources for a Separate network installations are:
- Geographic distance and diversity between networks
- Autonomous multi-homed separate networks
- Regulatory restrictions requiring separate networks
- Each additional allocation must be announced from a separate ASN
4.3 As part of this process, if the LIR should indicate whether it will be using an existing ASN for the additional announcement =96 which cannot be the same as the ASN of the initial assignment.
5. Advantages and disadvantages of the proposal ------------------------------------------------
- This proposal enables current APNIC account holders to avoid problematic network design issues and policy issues related to deaggregation.
- Current APNIC account holders will be able to acquire resources and announce them separately to transit providers in disparate locations.
- This proposal could cause faster consumption of IPv6 address space. However, given the size of the total IPv6 pool, the author of this proposal does not see this as a significant issue.
6. Effect on APNIC members ---------------------------
APNIC members would be able to build networks in separate locations and obtain local IPv6 connectivity and announce their own resources.
7. Effect on NIRs ------------------
The proposal allows for NIRs to have the choice as to when to adopt this policy for their members.
8. References ---------------
 For example, see "IPv6 BGP filter recommendations" http://www.space.net/~gert/RIPE/ipv6-filters.html
 See section 5.2, "Subsequent Allocation Section" in "IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy" http://www.apnic.net/policy/ipv6-address-policy#5.2
 2009-5 IPv6 Multiple Discrete Networks https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2009_5.html
 Multiple IPv6 /32 Allocations for LIRs http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2009-05.html
 Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2009-06.html