Re: [sig-policy] prop-101 Returned to mailing list and Newversion posted
It just makes simple sense. However:
I suggest removing the expectation on membership fees from the summary. That is an EC concern alone, and I'm not comfortable with the suggestion of taxing an organisation at a higher rate due to their business circumstances in an address policy space.
Cheers
Terry
(speaking for myself)
On 11/07/2012, at 1:46 PM, Andy Linton wrote:
> Can we remind you all that a revised version of this proposal,
> available at http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-101, is up for
> consideration at our next meeting. Of course, you should consider the
> whole proposal before deciding to support or oppose this proposal.
>
> The change from the previous version is the *removal* of the following clause:
>
> (e) The first Policy SIG meeting of 2014 (expected to be APNIC
> Meeting 35) will as an agenda item consider the observed rate of IPv6
> portable assignments and potential 10-year forecasts of growth of
> portable assignments prepared by the APNIC Secretariat extrapolated on
> the observed data, and by consensus consider the question "Should the
> IPv6 portable assignment criteria revert to requiring multihoming?"
>
> --
>
> This clause was a major point of debate in the debate at the last
> policy SIG meeting and while some people now are happy to support the
> proposal there has been no other discussion. We encourage you express
> your views on the list so that those who won't be able to attend the
> meeting in person have a chance to take part in the discussions.
>
>
> Andy, Masato, Skeeve
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 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: 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