Re: [sig-policy] Is the multihoming requirement necessary for IPv6 porta
Do you plan to propose it to APNIC 33 Policy SIG?
If so, it's very welcome and let me remind you the deadline is Feb 2nd.
Rgs,
Masato Yamanishi
> -----Original Message-----
> From: sig-policy-bounces at lists dot apnic dot net
> [mailto:sig-policy-bounces at lists dot apnic dot net] On Behalf Of
> David Woodgate
> Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2012 4:41 PM
> To: sig-policy at apnic dot net
> Subject: [sig-policy] Is the multihoming requirement
> necessary for IPv6 portable assignments?
>
>
> I would like to canvass the opinion of this list as to whether the
> current multihoming requirement for portable IPv6 assignments is
> truly necessary, or whether it could be removed from APNIC's IPv6
> allocation policy.
>
> That is, should IPv6 portable addresses be made available to anyone
> upon request (with appropriate justifications and fees), without the
> requirement to be multihomed?
>
> At the moment, the only option for IPv6 addressing of a singly-homed
> network is assignment from their ISP (as an LIR). This of course
> should be fine for dynamically-assigned networks, or networks small
> enough to renumber, but it will pose significant challenges for large
> to very large statically-configured networks if they wish to change
> ISP, since that implies by current practice and paradigms that the
> customer will need to renumber their entire network to a new address
> space assigned by the new ISP.
>
> This issue can easily be removed, simply by making portable addresses
> readily available to any company, and the only apparent policy change
> required would be to remove the current multihoming requirement (i.e.
> changing section 5.9.1 of the current "IPv6 address allocation and
> assignment policy"). I believe that APNIC's standard fees and other
> assignment criteria would naturally stop requests from any companies
> other than those who really needed this for genuine business purposes
> anyway (since who is going to pay AU$4,175 or more for a /48 if they
> don't have to?), so I don't believe such a change would risk an
> explosion of the routing table or an excessive consumption of
> IPv6 resources.
>
> There otherwise does not seem to be any obvious value in retaining
> the multihoming requirement; so while it may be likely that many
> networks of that scale would be multihomed anyway, it does not seem
> necessary to demand it - therefore I suggest it should be removed as
> an unnecessary limitation, as in some circumstances it could hinder
> or add complexity to the aim of general IPv6 deployment.
>
> I'm eager to hear any thoughts about this idea from the members of
> this list, and I would be interested in working with someone to
> co-author a policy proposal.
>
> David Woodgate
>
> * 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
>