[sig-policy] [Sig-policy] prop-073: Automatic allocation/assignment of I

  • To: "'sig-policy'" <sig-policy at apnic dot net>
  • Subject: [sig-policy] [Sig-policy] prop-073: Automatic allocation/assignment of IPv6
  • From: "Zhang Jian" <zhangjian at cnnic dot cn>
  • Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2009 15:31:42 +0800
  • Delivered-to: sig-policy at mailman dot apnic dot net
  • List-archive: <http://mailman.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>
  • Thread-index: Acn9+/lsUUcCX72ST1iw+p1sKfvpPwADyuiQ
      The proposal, 'Automatic allocation/assignment of IPv6', has been sent
      to the Policy SIG for review. It will be presented at the Policy SIG at
      APNIC 28 in Beijing, China, 25-28 August 2009. The proposal's history
      can be found at:
      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:
             - Do you support or oppose this proposal?
             - Does this proposal solve a problem you are experiencing? If
               so, tell the community about your situation.
             - Do you see any disadvantages in this proposal?
             - Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear?
             - What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more
      Randy, Jian and Ching-Heng
      prop-073-v001: Automatic allocation/assignment of IPv6
      Authors:   Terry Manderson
                  <terry at terrym dot net>
                  Andy Linton
                  <asjl at lpnz dot org>
      Version:   1
      Date:      6 July 2009
      1.  Introduction
      This proposal directs the APNIC Secretariat to automatically assess and
      provide IPv6 resources to APNIC members that currently hold IPv4
      resources in the APNIC registry but who do not hold IPv6 resources in
      the APNIC registry. The amount of IPv6 address space would be based on
      those current APNIC managed IPv4 holdings so that there would be no
      increase in their fees in accordance with the new APNIC fee schedule.
      2.  Summary of current problem
      It is well understood that the final allocations of IPv4 address space
      are drawing very close.
      It is also well understood that the uptake of IPv6 is less than ideal
      and as a result the community is scrambling for both policy and
      technical answers to extend the viable life of IPv4.
      As a community, we have done much to promote the adoption of IPv6. This
      policy proposal extends the efforts by removing the APNIC application
      barrier to receiving IPv6 address space.
      3.  Situation in other RIRs
           2008-02,"Assigning IPv6 PA to Every LIR", a similar, but certainly
           not the same, proposal, was withdrawn by the author due to lack of
           support. There had been concern about the impact on member fees and
           that the proposal would make IPv6 a commodity.
      There have been no similar proposals in other regions.
      4.  Details of the proposal
      This a proposal that APNIC issue an appropriately sized IPv6 delegation
           - Any APNIC member that holds APNIC-managed IPv4 addresses, but
             does not yet have APNIC-managed IPv6 addresses
           - Any APNIC member in future that applies for and receives IPv4
             addresses but has not yet received APNIC-managed IPv6 addresses
      The size of the IPv6 delegation made to the members described above will
      be based on the following criteria:
           - A member that has an IPv4 allocation shall be allocated
             an IPv6 /32
           - A member that has received an IPv4 assignment under the
             multihoming policy shall be assigned an IPv6 /48 assgnment
           - A member that has received an IPv4 assignment under the
             IXP policy shall be assigned an IPv6 /48
      It is the belief of the authors that an entity which has satisfied IPv4
      criteria has done enough work to be assessed for IPv6 resources.
      This proposal does not stop members from applying for further IPv6
      resources under current policies.
      A member should be given the opportunity to not automatically receive
      IPv6 resources.
      5.  Advantages and disadvantages of the proposal
      5.1 Advantages
           This proposal:
           - Allows APNIC to engage with all IPv4 resource holders alerting
             them to the need to start work on deploying IPv6 addressing.
           - Couples the resource application process for IPv4 with IPv6 and
             increases member benefit by avoiding duplication in the
             application to APNIC.
           - Removes another barrier to IPv6 adoption by providing all eligible
             organisations with an IPv6 assignment or allocation.
      5.2 Disadvantages
           One possible argument is that it assigns resources to an entity
           before it is requested by the entity as 'needed'. However, it
           appears that while the entity hasn't requested it, the IPv6
           allocation is needed in a broader sense to remove barriers and
           promote IPv6 deployment.
      6.  Effect on APNIC members
      6.1 Fees
           No member's fees will increase as a result of this proposal
           because under the APNIC fee schedule, assessed address fees
           are the greater of the IPv4 and IPv6 fees. This proposal was
           careful to ensure that IPv6 delegations would not increase a
           member's annual fee.
      6.2 Responsibility
           A member would automatically acquire the responsibility to manage
           and maintain a IPv6 allocation in the APNIC registry framework.
      6.3 Address/Internet number resource consumption
           There are about 1300 current APNIC members that do not hold an IPv6
           allocation. Allocating a /32 to each of these members would result
           in approximately a /22 to /21 of IPv6 address space allocated to
           these 1300 members in total.
           The actual allocation would be less than this as some members would
           receive a /48.
      7.  Effect on NIRs
      The impact on the NIR would depend if the NIR adopts this proposal for
      their constituency.
      Sig-policy-chair mailing list
      Sig-policy-chair at apnic dot net