[sig-policy] prop-111-v001: Request-based expansion of IPv6 default allo

Dear SIG members

The proposal "prop-111-v001: Request-based expansion of IPv6 default

allocation size" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review. It will be

presented at the Policy SIG at APNIC 37 in Petaling Jaya, Malaysia, on

Thursday, 27 February 2014.

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:

Â Â Â- Do you support or oppose this proposal?

Â Â Â- Does this proposal solve a problem you are experiencing? If so,

Â Â Â Âtell the community about your situation.

Â Â Â- Do you see any disadvantages in this proposal?

Â Â Â- Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear?

Â Â Â- What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more

Â Â Â Âeffective?

Information about this policy proposals is available from:

Â Â http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/111

Andy, Masato

----------------------------------------------------------------------

prop-111-v001: Request-based expansion of IPv6 default allocation size

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Author: Â Â Â Tomohiro Fujisaki

Â Â Â Â Â Â Â fujisaki at syce dot net

1. Problem statement

--------------------

Â ÂCurrently, IPv6 minimum allocation size to LIRs is defined as /32 in

Â Âthe "IPv6 address allocation and assignment policy", while APNIC

Â Âcurrently reserves up to /29 for each /32 allocation. It's better to

Â Âexpand this minimum allocation size up to /29 since:

Â Â- For traffic control purpose, some LIRs announce address blocks

Â Â Âlonger than /32 (e.g. /35). However, some ISPs set filters to block

Â Â Âaddress size longer than /32. If LIRs have multiple /32, they can

Â Â Âannounce these blocks and its reachability will be better than

Â Â Âlonger prefix.

Â Â- If an LIR needs address blocks larger than /32, LIRs may tend to

Â Â Âannounce as a single prefix if a /29 is allocated initially at

Â Â Âonce. i.e., total number of announced prefixes in case 1 may be

Â Â Âsmaller than in case 2.

Â Â Âcase 1:

Â Â ÂThe LIR obtains /29 at the beginning of IPv6 network construction.

Â Â Âcase 2:

Â Â ÂThe LIR obtains /32, and /31, /30 additionally with the subsequent

Â Â Âallocation mechanism.

Â Â- Before sparse allocation mechanism implemented in late 2008, /29

Â Â Âwas reserved for all /32 holders by sequence allocation mechanism

Â Â Âin the early years. It is possible to use these reserved

Â Â Âblocks efficiently with this modification.

2. Objective of policy change

-----------------------------

Â ÂThis proposal modifies the eligibility for an organization to receive

Â Âan initial IPv6 allocation up to a /29 by request basis.

3. Situation in other regions

-----------------------------

Â ÂRIPE-NCC:

Â ÂThe policy "Extension of IPv6 /32 to /29 on a per-allocation vs

Â Âper-LIR basis" is adopted in RIPE-NCC and LIRs in RIPE region can get

Â Âup to /29 by default.

4. Proposed policy solution

----------------------------

Â Â- Change the text to "5.2.2 Minimum initial allocation size" of

Â Â Âcurrent policy document as below:

Â Â ÂOrganizations that meet the initial allocation criteria are

Â Â Âeligible to receive an initial allocation of /32. For allocations

Â Â Âup to /29 no additional documentation is necessary.

Â Â- Add following text in the policy document:

Â Â Âfor Existing IPv6 address space holders

Â Â ÂLIRs that hold one or more IPv6 allocations are able to request

Â Â Âextension of each of these allocations up to a /29 without meeting

Â Â Âthe utilization rate for subsequent allocation and providing

Â Â Âfurther documentation.

5. Explain the advantages of the proposal

-----------------------------------------

Â Â- It will be possible for LIRs to control traffic easier.

Â Â- It is possible to use current reserved blocks efficiently.

6. Explain the disadvantages of the proposal

--------------------------------------------

Â ÂSome people may argue this will lead to inefficient utilization of

Â ÂIPv6 space. However, the space up to /29 is reserved by APNIC

Â Âsecretariat for each /32 allocation.

7. Impact on resource holders

-----------------------------

Â ÂNIRs must implement this policy if it is implemented by APNIC.