Re: [sig-policy] prop-087: IPv6 address allocation fordeployment purpose

  • To: Randy Bush <randy at psg dot com>, Policy SIG <sig-policy at apnic dot net>
  • Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-087: IPv6 address allocation fordeployment purposes
  • From: Yi Chu <yi_chu_01 at yahoo dot com>
  • Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2010 08:05:41 -0700 (PDT)
  • Delivered-to: sig-policy at mailman dot apnic dot net
  • In-reply-to: <m2vd82pr5t.wl%randy at psg dot com>
  • List-archive: <>
  • List-help: <>
  • List-id: APNIC SIG on resource management policy <>
  • List-post: <>
  • List-subscribe: <>, <>
  • List-unsubscribe: <>, <>
  • References: <>
    • available resources, IP addresses included.  If one does not have the 
      justification and v6 addresses to deploy 6rd, then one should consider a 
      different deployment approach, not the other way around.
      Any thoughts?
      ----- Original Message ----
      From: Randy Bush <randy at psg dot com>
      To: Policy SIG <sig-policy at apnic dot net>
      Sent: Mon, July 26, 2010 4:45:50 AM
      Subject: [sig-policy] prop-087: IPv6 address allocation fordeployment purposes
      Dear SIG members,
      The following proposal, "IPv6 address allocation for deployment
      purposes," has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.  It will be
      presented at the Policy SIG at APNIC 30.
      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
      Information about this policy proposal is available at:
      randy, Ching-Heng, and Terence
      prop-087-v001: IPv6 address allocation for deployment purposes
      Author:    Tomohiro Fujisaki <fujisaki at syce dot net>
      Version:  1
      Date:      26 July 2010
      1.  Introduction
      This is a proposal to add alternative criteria for receiving a larger
      than /32 initial IPv6 allocation during the initial IPv6 deployment
      phase (from now until 2013).  Under this proposal, a network can
      justify more than a /32 if the network is using deployment protocol
      described in a RFC.
      2.  Summary of the current problem
      Current IPv6 address allocation policy is basically based on number of
      subscribers the applicant will have [1], but this does not allow
      sufficient allocation size to adequately deploy some IPv6
      protocols. For example, the "6rd" protocol needs more than /32 to
      implement adequately in an ISP network due to technical reasons
      [2]. Therefore, criteria to allow allocations based on technical
      justification is necessary.
      3.  Situation in other RIRs
      ARIN has two related draft policies under discussion:
          2010-9: IPv6 for 6rd

          2010-12: IPv6 Subsequent Allocation

      RIPE has discussed the possibility of a policy proposal for 6rd,
      but no formal proposal has yet been submitted.
      There has been no similar discussion in AfriNIC or LACNIC.
      4.  Details
      This proposal contains two phases:
          1. IPv6 deployment phase (now until 2013)
          2. After the deployment phase
      It is proposed that:
      4.1 In the IPv6 deployment phase (til 2013), networks using an IPv6
          deployment protocol specified in an Standard track RFC are eligible
          for initial allocations larger than a /32.
          Requestors must specifically refer to the deployment protocol they
          are using and the number of the RFC describing it.
      4.2 After the deployment phase ends, networks that have received an
          allocation under the criteria described in section 4.1 above must
          demonstrate the usage of that address space.
          - If the network can justify continued use of the larger than /32
            address allocation by demonstrating it is in accordance with the
            HD-Ratio based utilization policy, the network may keep the entire
            address block.
          - If the network cannot demonstrate that it is in accordance with
            the HD-Ratio based utilization policy, it will need to return the
            excess portion of its address block to APNIC.
      5.  Pros/Cons
          - This proposed policy makes it easier to implement a IPv6 network.
            For example, new deployment protocols such as "6rd" can be
            implemented easily with this proposal.
          - Some deployment protocols need IPv6 address blocks larger than
            current criteria and this might waste IPv6 addresses.
      6.  Effect on APNIC
      APNIC members can obtain larger IPv6 address blocks for IPv6 deployment.
      7.  Effect on NIRs
      NIRs can select to implement this proposal or not.
      8.  References
      [1] See section 5.2, "Initial allocation" in "IPv6 address allocation
          and assignment policy"

      [2] See section 11, "IPv6 Address Space Usage" in "IPv6 Rapid Deployment
          on IPv4 Infrastructures (6rd)"

      *              sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy          *
      sig-policy mailing list
      sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net