Re: [sig-policy] Draft of policy proposal from Jordi Palet
and silently discarded the option, when they read the existing policy asking
for 200 /48.
This is also relevant to the new policy proposal that I've submitted to
other RIRs and also is being edited by APNIC staff in this region.
However, I guess is very difficult to know that figure ..
Regards,
Jordi
> De: John Tran <john at apnic dot net>
> Responder a: <sig-policy-bounces at lists dot apnic dot net>
> Fecha: Wed, 31 May 2006 11:26:07 +1000 (EST)
> Para: Philip Smith <pfs at cisco dot com>
> CC: <sig-policy at apnic dot net>
> Asunto: Re: [sig-policy] Draft of policy proposal from Jordi Palet
>
>
> Hi Philip
>
> Since the current IPv6 policy has been implemented we have denied 3
> requests. They were mainly from end users.
>
> http://www.apnic.net/docs/policy/ipv6-address-policy.html
>
> Regards
>
> Son
> APNIC secretariat
>
> On Wed, 31 May 2006, Philip Smith wrote:
>
>> Can the APNIC Secretariat please indicate how many organisations have
>> 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
>>>
>> * 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
>>
> * 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
**********************************************
The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org
Barcelona 2005 Global IPv6 Summit
Slides available at:
http://www.ipv6-es.com
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.