[sig-policy] prop-048: IPv6 ULA-central

  • To: sig-policy at apnic dot net
  • Subject: [sig-policy] prop-048: IPv6 ULA-central
  • From: Toshiyuki Hosaka <hosaka at nic dot ad dot jp>
  • Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 16:42:54 +0900
  • Cc:
  • List-archive: <http://www.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-policy>
  • List-help: <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=help>
  • List-id: APNIC SIG on resource management policy <sig-policy.lists.apnic.net>
  • List-post: <mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net>
  • List-subscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy>, <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=subscribe>
  • List-unsubscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy>, <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=unsubscribe>
  • Organization: Japan Network Information Center (JPNIC)
  • User-agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Windows/20070326)
    • 
      The proposal "IPv6 ULA-central" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.
      It will be presented at the Policy SIG at APNIC 24 in New Delhi, India, 29
      August - 7 September 2007. You are invited to review and comment on the
      proposal on the mailing list before the meeting.
      
      The proposal's history can be found at:
      
             http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-048-v001.html
      
      Regards,
      Toshiyuki Hosaka
      
      ________________________________________________________________________
      
      prop-048-v001: IPv6 ULA-central
      ________________________________________________________________________
      
      
      
      Author:    Jordi Palet Martinez, Consulintel
                 <jordi.palet at consulintel dot es>
      
      Version:   1
      
      Date:      14 April 2007
      
      
      Introduction
      ------------
      
      This policy is intended to allow the assignment of IPv6 blocks within
      the so-called "Centrally Assigned Unique Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses"
      (see http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ipv6-ula-central-01) to
      organizations or individuals requiring it. These addresses are globally
      unique and intended for local communications, usually within a site or
      set of them and are not expected to be routable on the global Internet.
      Prefix FC00::/7 is already reserved by IANA for ULA (bit 8 determines
      if locally or centrally assigned, so ULA or ULA-central).
      
      
      Summary of current problem
      --------------------------
      
      In some situations, especially large sites in organizations, which
      already may have Global Unicast IPv6 blocks, may require an additional
      block for their internal infrastructure.
      
      This additional block can be used for a number of purposes, such as
      VPNs, site-to-site communications, avoiding dual/multiple faced DNSs,
      support for applications which are sensitive to long convergence times
      (such as VoIP), etc.
      
      
      Situation in other RIRs
      -----------------------
      
      This policy proposal has already been submitted to the other regions.
      Some of them have not yet published it at the time of submission to
      APNIC.
      
      
      Proposal details
      ----------------
      
      Definition of ULA-central
      
          ULA-central refers to the Centrally Assigned Unique Local IPv6
          Unicast Addresses as described in the IETF document
          "ietf-ipv6-ula-central" (whatever version is the most recent, as an
          Internet Draft, RFC or STD). The ULA-central block is within the
          prefix FC00::/7, with bit 8 set to 0.
      
      
      Assignment of ULA-central blocks
      
          Any organization or individual requiring a /48 from the ULA-central
          block will be able to get it assigned, once the relevant contract is
          executed and related membership fees are paid (to be determined by
          the board).
      
         Note that in most of the cases, locally assigned ULA addresses (RFC
         4193) are preferred, and it is only expected that large managed sites
         will prefer central assignments. It is also important to reinforce
         that the ULA prefix (FC00::/7) it is not routable in the global
         Internet (i.e., not designed to be used as IPv6 portable assignments)
         and consequently must be filtered.
      
      Advantages and disadvantages of adopting the proposed policy
      ------------------------------------------------------------
      
      a.  Advantages
      
          In some situations, especially large sites in organizations, which
          already may have Global Unicast IPv6 blocks, may require an
          additional block for their internal infrastructure.
      
          This additional block can be used for a number of purposes, such as
          VPNs, site-to-site communications, avoiding dual/multiple faced
          DNSs, support for applications which are sensitive to long
          convergence times (such as VoIP), etc.
      
          The "Micro-allocations for Internal Infrastructure" document from
          ARIN (policy proposal 2006-2, authored by Jason Schiller et al.,
          available at http://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2006_2.html),
          describes the need of this kind of additional block for purposes BGP
          Re-Convergence, Internal Infrastructure Security and why locally
          assigned ULAs (RFC 4193) addresses are not appropriate. Such policy
          proposal was accepted through the policy development process and it
          is already part of the ARIN Number Resource Policy Manual.
      
          The usage of Global Unicast IPv6 blocks for this type of purposes
          must be considered as wasteful, especially when there is already an
          IANA reserved prefix (FC00::/7) for doing so.
      
      
      b.  Disadvantages
      
          None foreseen. However, it should be clear that the original scope
          of ULA-central is for large managed sites and all other cases should
          use locally assigned ULAs as per RFC 4193. From the same document,
          it is clearly documented the reasons why this prefix will not be
          useful as IPv6 portable assignments and will be filtered out in the
          global Internet.
      
      
      Effect on APNIC members
      -----------------------
      
      None expected.
      
      
      Effect on NIRs
      --------------
      They may need to adopt an equivalent proposal, or, as the number of
      assignations will be low, rely directly on the same system which may
      become implemented by APNIC.
      
      
      Acknowledgments
      ---------------
      I would like to acknowledge to the authors of the ULA-central work at
      IETF, Bob Hinden and Brian Haberman and all those who also contributed
      to that work.
      
      (end of text)