Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-101 Returned
to mailing list and Newversionposted
I'm not sure I fully understand your concern here, Terrence.
ARIN has been issuing portable /48 assignments for a few years now. I think it
is a reasonable minimum end-user assignment for IPv6. Can you elaborate on
what you mean by "a few exceptional"?
Owen
On Mar 8, 2012, at 5:26 AM, Terence Zhang YH wrote:
I don't object to allow a few exceptional /48
portable assignments,
and I don't insist on the
'2-year-expiration',
but I suggest either define the 'reasonable
justification' criterias explicitly & clearly
Subject:Re: [sig-policy] prop-101
Returned to mailing list and Newversionposted
I too support this version of the
proposal
On Thursday, March 8, 2012, Randy Whitney <randy.whitney at verizon dot com>
wrote: > I support this version of the proposal, which removes the
controversial > 4.E.e Sunset Clause from the text, while leaving the
4.E.d Reporting > requirement. > > Best Regards, >
Randy. > > On 3/6/2012 8:20 PM, Masato Yamanishi
wrote: >> Dear SIG members >> >> # I'm sending
this notification on behalf of Andy Linton, Policy SIG
chair >> >> Version 3 of prop-101 Removing multihoming
requirement for IPv6 portable >> assignments, did not reach
consensus at the APNIC 33 Policy SIG. >> Therefore, this proposal
is being returned to the author >> and the Policy SIG mailing
list for further discussion. >> >> The author has
submitted a revised proposal, prop-101-v004, for further >>
discussion on the Policy SIG mailing
list. >> >> >> Proposal details >>
--------------------- >> >> This is a proposal to change
the "IPv6 address allocation and assignment >> policy" to allow
portable (that is, provider independent or PI) >> assignments of
IPv6 address blocks to be made by APNIC to any >> organization
with due justification and payment of standard fees, >> removing
the current requirement that the requestor is or plans to be >>
multihomed. >> >> >> Proposal details including
the full text of the proposal, history, and >> links to mailing
list discussions are available at: >> >>
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-101 >> >>
Regards >> >> Andy, Skeeve, and
Masato >> >> >> >>
------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >>
prop-101-v004: Removing multihoming requirement for IPv6
portable >>
assignments >> >>
------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> >>
1. Introduction >> --------------- >> >> This a
proposal to change the "IPv6 address allocation and assignment >>
policy" to allow portable (that is, provider independent or
PI) >> assignments of IPv6 address blocks to be made by APNIC to
any >> organization with due justification and payment of
standard fees, >> removing the current requirement that the
requestor is or plans to be >>
multihomed. >> >> 2. Summary of the current
problem >>
--------------------------------- >> >> Current APNIC
policy only permits portable assignments of IPv6 >> addresses to
be made to an organization "if it is currently multihomed >> or
plans to be multihomed within three months." [1] This requirement
may >> unnecessarily complicate the implementation of IPv6 in
some networks >> that are large or complex and use static
assignment of addresses. It is >> therefore proposed to remove
this requirement. >> >> IPv6 models tend to assume
widespread assignment of registered IPv6 >> addresses to
equipment throughout a network; so if provider assigned >> IPv6
addresses have been used in an organization's network, then
any >> change of ISP would require a renumbering of the entire
network. Such >> renumbering may be feasible if the network is
small or dynamically >> assigned (for example, through use of
prefix-delegation), but >> renumbering a large,
statically-assigned network would be a significant >> operational
challenge, and may not be practically possible. >> >>
Although it is likely that many large networks would be
multihomed, >> there will be technical or commercial reasons why
some will not be; >> currently those networks cannot obtain
portable IPv6 assignments from >> APNIC, and would need to use
assignments from their ISPs, and accept the >> associated
difficulties of future renumbering if they do so. This >>
consideration and complexity could significantly delay IPv6 use by
the >> affected organisations, which is not
desirable. >> >> There is a risk that removing the
multihoming requirement could cause >> a significant increase in
demand for portable assignments, which in turn >> could cause the
Internet routing tables to grow beyond manageable >> levels. It
is not feasible to quickly generate any realistic model of >>
likely demand increase which would arise from the proposed
policy >> change, but it is argued that any such increase would
only be of a scale >> to produce a manageable impact on global
routing, for reasons including: >> >>
- Organizations would only be likely to seek portable addressing
if >> they believed it were essential
for their operations, as provider >>
assigned > non-member agreement, under the
standard terms& conditions and >>
paying the standard fees applicable for their respective
category. >> >> B. An organization will be
automatically eligible for a minimum IPv6 >>
portable assignment if they have previously justified an IPv4 >>
portable assignment from
APNIC. >> >> C. Requests by organizations that
have not previously received an >> IPv4
portable assignment will need to be accompanied
by: >> >> (a) a reasonable
technical justification indicating why IPv6 >>
addresses from an ISP or other LIR are unsuitable -
examples of >> suitable
technical justifications may include (but are not >> limited
to): >> >> (i)
Demonstration that the relevant network is statically >>
addressed and of a size or
complexity that would make IPv6 >>
renumbering operationally impractical within an
acceptable >>
business period, together with evidence that dynamic or >>
multiple addressing options are
either not available from >>
the relevant ISP or are unsuitable for use by
the >>
organization; >> >>
(ii) Demonstration that any future renumbering of the relevant >>
network could
potentially interfere with services of a >>
critical medical or civic
nature; >> >> (b) A detailed plan
of intended usage of the proposed address block >>
over at least the 12 months following
allocation. >> >> D. The minimum IPv6 portable
assignment to any organization is to be >>
an address block of /48. A portable assignment of a larger
block >> (that is, a block with a prefix
mask less than /48) may be made: >> >>
(a) If it is needed to ensure that the HD-ratio for the
planned >> network assignments
from the block remains below the applied >>
HD-ratio threshold specified in Section 5.3.1 of the APNIC
IPv6 >> policy [6],
or; >> >> (b) If addressing is
required for 2 or more of the organization's >>
sites operating distinct and unconnected
networks. >> >> Any requests for
address blocks larger than the minimum size will >>
need to be accompanied by a detailed plan of the intended usage
of >> the proposed assignment over at least
the following 12 months. >> >> E. In order to
minimise routing table impacts: >> >>
(a) Only one IPv6 address block is to be given to an
organization >> upon an
initial request for a portable assignment; subnets of >>
this block may be assigned by the organization
to its different >> sites if
needed; >> >> (b) It is recommended
that the APNIC Secretariat applies sparse >>
allocation methodologies so that any subsequent requests
from an >> organization for
additional portable addressing would be >>
accommodated where possible through a change of prefix mask
of a >> previous assignment
(for example, 2001:db8:1000::/48 -> ] >>
2001:db8:1000::/44), rather than through allocation
of a new >> prefix. An
additional prefix should only be allocated where it >>
is not possible to simply change the prefix
mask. >> >> (c) Any subsequent
request for an additional portable assignment to >>
an organization must be accompanied by
information >>
demonstrating: >> >>
(i) Why an additional portable assignment is required, and why >>
-- Regards,
Dean
*
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