Dear SIG members,

The proposal "prop-131-v001: 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-v001: 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 reworded to mention a RIPE BCOP, 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.



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.
BCOP RIPE690 Section 4.2, provides guidelines about this.

...

==================================================

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
*              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

Reply via email to