|
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 effective? Information about this and other policy proposals is available from: http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals Randy, Ching-Heng, and Terence ___________________________________________________________________ prop-083-v001: Alternative criteria for subsequent IPv6 allocations ___________________________________________________________________ Author: Skeeve Stevens <skeeve at eintellego dot net> Version: 1 Date: 3 February 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 [1]. 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. For example: 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 [2] 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 - 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 ------------------------------------------------ 5.1 Advantages - 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. 5.2 Disadvantages - 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 --------------- [1] For example, see "IPv6 BGP filter recommendations" http://www.space.net/~gert/RIPE/ipv6-filters.html [2] See section 5.2, "Subsequent Allocation Section" in "IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy" http://www.apnic.net/policy/ipv6-address-policy#5.2 _______________________________________________
|