Dear SIG members,
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, 1-5 March 2010.
We invite you to review and comment on the proposal on the mailing list
before the meeting.
The comment period on the mailing list before an APNIC meeting is an
important part of the policy development process. We encourage you to
express your views on the proposal:
- Do you support or oppose this proposal?
- Does this proposal solve a problem you are experiencing? If so,
tell the community about your situation.
- Do you see any disadvantages in this proposal?
- Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear?
- What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more
Information about this and other policy proposals is available from:
Randy, Ching-Heng, and Terence
prop-083-v001: Alternative criteria for subsequent IPv6 allocations
Author: Skeeve Stevens
<skeeve at eintellego dot net>
Date: 3 February 2010
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, ARIN, LACNIC and RIPE currently have no similar policies or
proposals. However, ARIN mailing lists are presently discussing this
situation and there seems to be significant support.
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
- Be announcing its existing IPv6 allocation
- Demonstrate that the LIR has additional networks that are not
connected to the network announcing its existing IPv6 allocation
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
- Current APNIC account holders will be able to acquire resources
and announce them separately to transit providers in disparate
- 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.
 For example, see "IPv6 BGP filter recommendations"
 See section 5.2, "Subsequent Allocation Section" in "IPv6 Address
Allocation and Assignment Policy"