Hi, On Jan 15, 2024, at 12:39 AM, Bertrand Cherrier via SIG-policy <[email protected]> wrote: > > Dear SIG members, > > A new proposal "prop-158-v001: IPv6 auto-allocation for each IPv4 request" > has been sent to the Policy SIG for review. > > It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting (OPM) at APNIC 57 on > Thursday, 29 February 2024. > > https://2024.apricot.net/program/program/#/day/9/ > > We invite you to review and comment on the proposal on the mailing list > before the OPM. > > The comment period on the mailing list before the OPM is an important > part of the Policy Development Process (PDP). We encourage you to > express your views on the proposal: > > - Do you support or oppose this proposal?
Oppose. > - Does this proposal solve a problem you are experiencing? If so, > tell the community about your situation. No. > - Do you see any disadvantages in this proposal? It would result in the allocation of IPv6 address space that would almost certainly be unused, increasing (albeit slightly) administrative load for managing IPv6 address space both at APNIC and the requester, as well as potentially increasing the risk of address hijack. > - Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear? See below. > - What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more effective? The basis for the proposal, i.e., that automatic allocation of IPv6 addresses when IPv4 addresses are requested will increase IPv6 adoption, appears to assume the reason IPv6 deployment is slow is because of friction in the allocation processes of IPv6. Providing evidence that this is the case would likely help in justifying this proposal. > Information about this proposal is appended below as well as available at: > > http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-158 > > Regards, > Bertrand, Shaila, and Anupam > APNIC Policy SIG Chairs > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > prop-158-v001: IPv6 auto-allocation for each IPv4 request > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Proposers: David Aditya Yoga Pratama ([email protected]) > M. Andri Setiawan ([email protected]) > > > 1. Problem statement > ------------------------- > > Based on this > https://www.apnic.net/manage-ip/ipv4-exhaustion/#how-much-apnic-has, APNIC > still has around 2,539,776 available IPv4 addresses and may claimed another > 2,479,360 reserved IPv4 addresses. > > APNIC member still can get /24 of IPv4 addresses based on the current APNIC > policy. > > Most of the new IPv4 requestors are not allocated or requesting IPv6 even > though they are eligible to do so. It may be instructive to understand why this is the case, e.g., asking requesters who decline IPv6 allocations why they are uninterested in those allocations. > The rates of IPv4 allocation is faster than IPv6 allocation and it may keep > slow the deployment of IPv6. - Documenting the rates of IPv4 and IPv6 allocation would be helpful - The implication that a higher rate of IPv4 allocation is slowing IPv6 deployment is not justified/documented by the proposal. > APNIC associate member can get IPv6 without additional cost (proposal-155), > so APNIC member should be able to do the same when they request IPv4 address. > > 2. Objective of policy change > ---------------------------------- > > Allocate IPv6 addresses to each IPv4 addresses requests to speed up the IPv6 > adoption and deployment rates. It is unclear that the allocation of IPv6 addresses when they are not requested would have a material impact on the IPv6 adoption/deployment rate. If there is no request for IPv6 addresses, it suggests the requester is uninterested in or unable to deploy IPv6. Providing an IPv6 allocation automatically would most likely result in those addresses simply being ignored. While it is unlikely the loss of this address space would have a material impact on the lifetime of IPv6, the allocation of address space unlikely to be legitimately used imposes administrative costs and may create increased risks related to address hijacking. > 3. Situation in other regions > -------------------------------- > > AFRINIC - No such policy > ARIN - No such policy and it has no available address space to be offered > RIPE NCC - No such policy and it has no available address space to be offered > LACNIC - IPv6 allocation request is used as “requirements” for any IPv4 > request as mentioned in their policy point 2.3.3.1 - 2.3.3.4 and 2.3.4. “The > applicant must already have at least one IPv6 block assigned by LACNIC or, if > not, must simultaneously request an initial IPv6 block in accordance with the > corresponding applicable policy. (If an applicant has already been assigned > an IPv6 block, they shall submit to LACNIC a brief document describing their > progress in the implementation of IPv6.)” > > 4. Proposed policy solution > -------------------------------- > Add this to Section "6.1. Minimum and maximum IPv4 delegations" of the APNIC > Policy document. > > For all new and initial IPv4 delegation requests, APNIC and NIR will > automatically delegates IPv6 address, matching the IPv6 policy in Section > 8.2.1 (i.e allocation or assignment). > > Automatically delegated IPv6 address should be put into deployment within two > years from the date of the delegation, same as Point 3 in Section 8.2.2. > > For any subsequent IPv4 requests, APNIC and NIR account holder should be able > to demonstrate the deployment status of the automatically delegated IPv6 > address space. APNIC and NIR may verify these details with the publicly > available routing/BGP data and any other sourceses. > > 5. Advantages / Disadvantages > ------------------------------------ > Advantages: > -Maintain the consistency mapping between IPv4 and IPv6 allocation. Given the limits associated with IPv4 compared to IPv6, it is unclear why a consistent mapping would be a goal or indeed even possible in the long run. > -Speed up the adoption of IPv6 addresses. The proposal would speed up the allocation of IPv6 addresses. It is unclear and has not been documented if it would speed the adoption/deployment of IPv6. > Disadvantages: > -The allocated IPv6 may not be deployed by the LIRs on time. > -Change on the resources allocation system at APNIC. > > 6. Impact on resource holders > ----------------------------------- > No Impact on resource holders. Resource holders would receive an IPv6 allocation that they may be unable to make use of. Ideally, they would track that allocation for the time it would be put into use. However, history has shown that tracking allocations of address space over time may not be ideal. > Impact on APNIC: > - Change the allocation system at APNIC to automatically allocate IPv6 > without any options to select IPv4 address, IPv6 address or both. > - It may change the pricing scheme without considering IPv6 address > allocation when member request both IPv4 and IPv6 addresses. > > 7. References > ———————— Regards, -drc _______________________________________________ SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/[email protected]/ To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
