Re: [sig-policy] Draft of policy proposal from Jordi Palet
been denied IPv6 address space under the existing IPv6 address
allocation policy?
That information might help any discussion surrounding this policy proposal.
philip
--
Kenny Huang said the following on 29/5/06 09:13:
>
> Dear SIG members
>
> The following proposal "IPv6 portable assignment for end user organisations"
> has been sent to the Policy SIG for review. It will be presented at the
> Policy SIG at APNIC 22 in Kaohsiung, Taiwan, 4-8 September 2006. Please feel
> free to review and comment on the proposal on the mailing list before the
> meeting.
>
> The proposal's history can be found at:
>
> http://www.apnic.net/docs/policy/proposals/prop-034-v001.html
>
> Please feel free to submit your own policy proposal for discussion at APNIC
> 22.
>
> Regards
>
> Kenny Huang
> Policy SIG
> huangk at alum dot sinica dot edu
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> prop-034-v001: IPv6 portable assignment for end user organisations
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
>
> Author: Jordi Palet Martinez, Consulintel
>
> Version: 1
>
> Date: 29 May 2006
>
> SIG: Policy
>
>
>
>
> Introduction
> ------------
>
> This policy allows end user organisations that multihome, plan to multihome
> or require a portable IPv6 assignment for other administrative/technical
> reasons, to actually receive it.
>
>
>
> Summary of current problem
> --------------------------
> In IPv4 address space, end user organisations that currently multihome, plan
> to multihome or have a similar need for a portable block, can
>
> request a portable IPv4 assignment from APNIC if they meet the IPv4
> multihoming criteria. However, there is no equivalent policy for an end user
> organisation wishing to multihome using IPv6 addresses.
>
> Portable IPv6 assignments are already available to organisations that meet
> the IXP or critical infrastructure criteria.
>
>
>
> Situation in other RIRs
> -----------------------
> All the RIRs are currently discussing a similar proposal.
>
>
>
> Details of your proposal
> ------------------------
>
> Criteria for portable IPv6 assignments:
>
> To qualify for a portable assignment, the organisation:
>
> - must not be an IPv6 Local Internet Registry (LIR); and,
> - must qualify for an IPv4 portable assignment from APNIC
> under current IPv4 policies. This applies whether or not
> the organisation holds IPv4 portable assignment.
>
>
> Initial assignment size:
>
> The minimum size of the assignment is /32. However, a larger
> assignment can be provided if duly documented and justified.
>
>
> Subsequent assignment size:
>
> Whenever possible, further assignments will be made from adjacent
> address blocks, but only if duly documented and justified.
>
>
> Assignment 'super block':
>
> Assignments will be made from a separate 'super block' to allow LIRs
> to filter them, if required.
>
>
> Lifetime of policy:
>
> This policy is an interim solution until an alternative technical
> solution to multihoming in IPv6 can be developed by the community.
> After the technical community develops an alternative and deployable
> solution to multihoming in IPv6, this portable IPv6 assignment
> policy for multihomed organisations would expire.
>
>
> Expiry of assignments:
>
> Because of the probable medium to long-term consequences of this
> policy on routing tables, any assignments made under this proposed
> policy should be reclaimed by APNIC three years after a viable
> alternative solution to multihoming in IPv6 is developed.
>
> End user organisations that wish to avoid renumbering out of the
> assigned IPv6 prefix would be able to opt to become an LIR, and,
> if they qualify, receive an allocation that includes the
> same prefix the organisation was originally assigned.
>
>
>
> Advantages and disadvantages of adopting the proposed policy
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Advantages:
>
> In IPv4, there are organisations that qualify for a portable
> assignments, or that could opt to become an LIR. This may be because
> they need either to be multihomed or have other administrative or
> technical reasons for needing a portable address block.
>
> This is currently not the case for IPv6, and is perceived as a clear
> barrier for deployment of IPv6 in some organisations. This policy
> proposal addresses that barrier by means of providing a direct
> assignment from APNIC.
>
> Any organisation receiving such an assignment would not be allowed
> to make further assignments to other external organisations, but
> instead only to assign subnets internally within their own
> facilities.
>
> Assigning a /32 would make those blocks behave as other regular LIR
> allocated ones and follow generally accepted routing filtering
> practices. At the same time, the blocks would be identifiable as
> belonging to a special 'super block'. This would also allow
> organisations to become an LIR and avoid the need for renumbering.
>
> With this policy, we avoid the unfair situation among different
> regions, and meet the needs of any organisation that required
> portable address space. Organisations with a portable assignment
> will be in an equal position once the community agrees with a
> long-term technical solution and will have to either move to this
> new solution or become an LIR, if they qualify. Newcomers will also
> be in the same position. Some organisations will not opt for
> portable assignments under this policy because they do not need
> it. This would avoid placing them in an unfair situation.
>
> Those that do not believe in possible alternative solutions, but
> who prefer to go for a permanent portable assignment policy, have
> no valid reasons to oppose this proposal, as the 'sunset period'
> should only be in effect once a suitable solution had been agreed.
> This proposal should not interfere with their plans.
>
> Some organisations may qualify to become an LIR now, and avoid using
> this temporary assignment. However if their only reason to become an
> LIR is to get a portable assignment, then it may a better control
> for the routing table size in the long-term, if they use the option
> offered by this proposal. This would be fairer to the wider Internet
> community.
>
> The 'temporary' nature of this assignment must be considered
> long-term, as we may expect alternative solutions to be available
> in around three to four years. This takes no account of a
> transition period. Therefore, asking for a change after six or seven
> years should be acceptable to all.
>
>
> Disadvantages:
>
> The possible effect of this proposal is the growth of global routing
> tables to levels that, together with the existing and forecast IPv4
> routing entries, could create significant issues for operators
> unless vendors can provide products that address such issues. Even
> if such technical solutions were found, the proposal could still
> have a major impact on the cost and/or depreciation period for
> infrastructure investments.
>
> For this reason, this proposal comes with a fixed 'sunset' period,
> dependant upon the date when an alternative technically viable
> solution is available and accepted by the Internet community.
>
> A temporary /32 assignment should not be seen as a waste of address
> space. It would bring with it the advantage of removing the needs
> for new special filters and avoiding renumbering to those that could
> become LIRs.
>
>
>
> Effect on APNIC members
> -----------------------
>
> N/A
>
>
>
> Effect on NIRs
> --------------
>
> N/A
>
>
>
> Acknowledgments
> ---------------
>
> I would like to acknowledge input received for the first version of this
> proposal from Marcelo Bagnulo and Lea Roberts.
>
> * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
> _______________________________________________
> sig-policy mailing list
> sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net
> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
>