Dear SIG members,
The proposal "prop-131-v002: Editorial changes in IPv6 Policy" has been
sent to the Policy SIG for review.
It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting at APNIC 48 in
Chiang Mai, Thailand on Thursday, 12 September 2019.
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
effective?
Information about this proposal is available at:
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-131
Regards
Sumon, Bertrand, Ching-Heng
APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
prop-131-v002: Editorial changes in IPv6 Policy
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposer: Jordi Palet Martínez
jordi.pa...@theipv6company.com
1. Problem statement
-------------------------------------------------------
This proposal suggests multiple (mainly) editorial changes in the IPv6
Policy. The intent is to remove non-necessary text, and simplify the
policy.
Section 5.2.4.2. is shortened, and 5.2.4.4. is removed, as it is
something obvious that operators need to assign some space for different
parts of their own infrastructure.
Section 5.2.4.3. explicitly states that it was drafted at a time when
there was no experience with IPv6 deployment, which is this is longer
the case, it does not make sense to have NIR/RIR to evaluate each
instance where an LIR has an End User whose end site(s) requires a
shorter prefix than a /48.
Finally, section 10.1.4.1. is reworded, taking advantage of some of the
editorial changes in the precedent sections, so to avoid duplicating
text.
Just as a reference for IPv6 assignment, RIPE BCOP690, provides
comprehensive guidelines (Best Current Operational Practices).
2. Objective of policy change
-------------------------------------------------------
Fulfil the above indicated edits.
3. Situation in other regions
-------------------------------------------------------
A similar proposal has been submitted to RIPE.
4. Proposed policy solution
-------------------------------------------------------
Current Text
5.2.4.2. Assignment address space size
...
End-users are assigned an end site assignment from their LIR or ISP. The
exact size of the assignment is a local decision for the LIR or ISP to
make, using a minimum value of a /64 (when only one subnet is
anticipated for the end site) up to the normal maximum of /48, except in
cases of extra large end sites where a larger assignment can be
justified.
...
New Text
5.2.4.2. Assignment address space size
...
End Users are assigned an end site assignment from their LIR or ISP. The
size of the assignment is a local decision for the LIR or ISP to make,
using a value of "n" x /64.
...
==================================================
Current Text
5.2.4.3. Assignment of multiple /48s to a single end site
When a single end site requires an additional /48 address block, it must
request the assignment with documentation or materials that justify the
request. Requests for multiple or additional /48s will be processed and
reviewed (i.e., evaluation of justification) at the RIR/NIR level.
Note: There is no experience at the present time with the assignment of
multiple /48s to the same end site. Having the RIR review all such
assignments is intended to be a temporary measure until some experience
has been gained and some common policies can be developed. In addition,
additional work at defining policies in this space will likely be
carried out in the near future.
New Text
5.2.4.3. Assignment of multiple /48s to a single end site
Assignment larger than /48 (shorter prefix) or additional assignments
exceeding a total of /48 must be made based on address usage, or because
different routing requirements exist for additional assignments.
In case of a review or when making a request for a subsequent
allocation, the LIR must be able to present documentation justifying the
need for assignments shorter than a /48 to a single End-Site.
====================================================
Current Text
5.2.4.4. Assignment to operator's infrastructure
An organization (ISP/LIR) may assign a /48 per PoP as the service
infrastructure of an IPv6 service operator. Each assignment to a PoP is
regarded as one assignment regardless of the number of users using the
PoP. A separate assignment can be obtained for the in-house operations
of the operator.
New Text
(removed and following sections renumbered accordingly)
=====================================================
Current Text
10.1.4.1. Initial assignment
...
The minimum assignment made under this policy is a /48. Larger blocks
may be delegated in circumstances outlined in "APNIC guidelines for IPv6
allocation and assignment requests".
...
New Text
10.1.4.1. Initial assignment
The minimum size of the assignment is a /48.
The considerations of "5.2.4.3. Assignments shorter than a /48 to a
single End-Site" must be followed if needed.
====================================================
5. Advantages / Disadvantages
-------------------------------------------------------
Advantages:
Fulfilling the objectives above indicated.
Disadvantages:
None foreseen.
6. Impact on resource holders
-------------------------------------------------------
None.
7. References
-------------------------------------------------------
AFRINIC and LACNIC don’t have this requirements in their IPv6 policies
and recommend an assignment size of /48
https://www.afrinic.net/policy/manual#Allocations-Assignments-Policies
(section 6.5.4.1 Assignment address space size)
https://www.lacnic.net/684/2/lacnic/ (section 4.5.3.1 - Assignment
address space size)
ARIN policy requires for larger initial assignments to be reasonably
justified with supporting documentation, based on the number of sites in
an organization’s network and the number of subnets needed to support
any extra-large sites.
https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/nrpm/#6-5-4-reassignments-from-lirs-isps
Cordialement,
___________________________________________
Bertrand Cherrier
Administration Systèmes - R&D
Micro Logic Systems
b.cherr...@micrologic.nc
https://www.mls.nc
Tél : +687 24 99 24
VoIP : 65 24 99 24
SAV : +687 36 67 76 (58F/min)
___________________________________________
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
_______________________________________________
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy