Re: [sig-policy] prop-101 Returned to mailing list and Newversion posted
support this proposal.
Regards
Dean
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 5:55 PM, Andy Linton <asjl at lpnz dot org> wrote:
> We'd like to remind you all that this proposal was returned to the mailing
> list for discussion before the next meeting. It would be great to see some
> discussion on the list before we get much closer to the meeting in August.
>
> Regards
>
> Andy, Skeeve, and Masato
>
> ---
> On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 2:20 PM, Masato Yamanishi
> <myamanis at japan-telecom dot com> 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 IPv6 addressing would be likely to be offered
>> automatically and at no additional cost with their Internet
>> services from their ISP;
>>
>> - APNIC membership fees would be expected to naturally discourage
>> unnecessary requests, as these would be a far greater cost than
>> that for provider assigned addressing;
>>
>> - Many or most organizations that require portable addressing will
>> be multihomed, so the demand increase caused by removing the
>> multihomed requirement should be small;
>>
>> - Only a limited set of an ISP's products is likely to allow
>> customers to use portable assignments if they are singly-homed.
>>
>>
>> 3.Situation in other RIRs
>> -------------------------
>>
>> APNIC is now the only RIR remaining with an absolute requirement for
>> multihoming for portable address assignments.
>>
>> AfriNIC: The "Policy for IPv6 ProviderIndependent (PI) Assignment for
>> End-Sites" [2] does not mention any requirement for multihoming;
>>
>> ARIN: Section 6.5.8 of the "ARIN Number Resource Policy Manual" [3]
>> only identifies multihoming as one of several alternative criteria for
>> direct IPv6 assignment to end-user organizations;
>>
>> LACNIC: There is no mention of multihoming anywhere in the IPv6
>> section (Section 4) of the current LACNIC Policy Manual (v1.8 -
>> 07/12/2011) [4].
>>
>> RIPE: The latest version (RIPE-545 [5]) published in January 2012 of
>> the "IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy" does not mention
>> multihoming, removing the requirement that existed in previous versions
>> of the document.
>>
>>
>> 4.Details
>> ---------
>>
>> It is proposed that section 5.9.1 of APNIC's "IPv6 address allocation
>> and assignment policy" (apnic-089-v010) is rewritten to remove the
>> absolute multihoming requirement for portable assignments, and to
>> incorporate the following conditions:
>>
>>
>> A. Portable IPv6 assignments are to be made only to organizations
>> that have either joined APNIC as members or have signed the
>> 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
>> an assignment from from an ISP or other LIR cannot be used
>> for this purpose instead;
>>
>> (ii) That the use of previous portable IPv6 allocations
>> generated the minimum possible number of global routing
>> announcements and the maximum aggregation of that block;
>>
>> (iii) How the additional assignment would be managed to minimise
>> the growth of the global IPv6 routing table.
>>
>> (d) The APNIC Secretariat will produce reports of the number of
>> portable IPv6 assignments requested, preferably as an
>> automatically-generated daily graph of the number of cumulative
>> IPv6 portable assignments published publically on the APNIC
>> website, or else as regular (at a minimum, quarterly) reports
>> sent to the sig-policy mailing list detailing the incremental
>> assignments of new IPv6 portable assignments made since the last
>> report, plus the cumulative total of IPv6 portable assignments.
>>
>>
>> 5.Pros/Cons
>> -----------
>>
>> Advantages:
>>
>> - This proposal would provide access to portable IPv6 addresses
>> for all organizations with valid needs, removing a potential
>> impediment to industry standard IPv6 addressing for large
>> singly-homed networks
>>
>> - This change would align APNIC with the policies of all other RIRs
>> on portable assignments
>>
>> Disadvantages:
>>
>> - There would be a risk of an unmanageably large increase in
>> global IPv6 routing table size and APNIC workload if there were to
>> be a substantial and widespread increase in demand for portable
>> assignments arising from the removal of the multihoming
>> requirement
>>
>> - But demand is expected to be limited by the requirements specified
>> in section 4 for justifications and APNIC standard fees, as well
>> as other industry factors such as the capability of Internet
>> services to support portable addressing.
>>
>>
>> 6.Effect on APNIC
>> -----------------
>>
>> The impact of this proposal on the APNIC Secretariat would depend on
>> the increase of demand for portable assignments. Even if demand is
>> eventually large, it is unlikely that there will be an significant
>> change in hostmaster workloads for a long time because of the slow rate
>> of take up of IPv6, and so there should be sufficient time to identify
>> and take steps to modify policies and processes if necessary to manage
>> the increase.
>>
>>
>> 7.Effect on NIRs
>> ----------------
>>
>> This proposal specifically applies to portable assignments made by
>> APNIC. It would be the choice of each NIR as to whether they would adopt
>> a similar policy.
>>
>>
>> References:
>> -----------
>>
>> [1] Section 5.9.1, IPv6 address allocation and assignment policy,
>> http://www.apnic.net/policy/ipv6-address-policy#5.9
>> [2] http://www.afrinic.net/docs/policies/AFPUB-2007-v6-001.htm
>> [3] https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#six58
>> [4] http://www.lacnic.net/en/politicas/manual5.html
>> [5] http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-545 [6]Section 5.3.1, IPv6
>> address allocation and assignment policy,
>> http://www.apnic.net/policy/ipv6-address-policy#5.3
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Sig-policy-chair mailing list
>> Sig-policy-chair at apnic dot net
>> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy-chair
>>
>> * 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
>
--
Regards,
Dean