First, multihoming justifies an IPv6 assignment of /48 but does not justify a shorter assignment alone.
Having multiple sites justifies a /44 of IPv6. Nevertheless, allocating a /23 of IPv4 could mean they need 512 IPv4 addresses at one site, which doesn't justify a /44 of IPv6. You can't know simply from the allocation of a /23 of IPv4 that a /44 of IPv6 is justified. It is possibly justified, but this policy says it is always justified, which is incorrect. Thanks. On Mon, Aug 19, 2024 at 12:36 PM Rafeeun Noby Babir <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi David, > > Thank you for your question. The justification for aligning a /23 IPv4 > allocation with a /44 IPv6 allocation is rooted in the specific needs of > network design and best practices. > > When members request a /23 IPv4 allocation, they are not merely seeking > 512 IPv4 addresses. The primary reasons often involve multi-homing or > multi-site deployments, which require multiple /24 blocks. A /24 is the > smallest block that can be advertised on the global Internet, making it > crucial for such use cases. > > In the context of IPv6, a similar situation arises. Multi-homing or > multi-site deployments typically require multiple /48 blocks, as the /48 is > the recommended minimum size for an individual site. To maintain efficiency > and follow best practices, particularly the use of nibble boundaries in > IPv6 addressing, the next logical step after a /48 is a /44. > > Thus, the alignment of a /23 IPv4 allocation with a /44 IPv6 allocation > ensures that members can effectively manage their multi-homing and > multi-site requirements in both IPv4 and IPv6 contexts, adhering to > industry best practices. > > Additionally, this proposal is not just based on a theoretical idea but is > backed by our research on the low IPv6 adoption rates among small or new > ISPs and organizations in less developed countries. Due to the lack of > sufficient routable IPv6 compared to IPv4, many of these organizations are > opting out of dual-stack network plans. By aligning IPv6 allocations with > their actual needs, we aim to encourage broader adoption and support more > sustainable network growth. > > > *With Regards,* > *Rafeeun Noby Babir* > > > On Mon, Aug 19, 2024 at 10:31 PM David Farmer <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Why does justifying a /23 of IPv4 or 512 IPv4 addresses justify a /44 of >> IPv6? This proposal states it as a fact. Could you explain why this is the >> case? >> >> Thanks >> >> On Mon, Aug 19, 2024 at 1:43 AM Rafeeun Noby Babir <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Hi David, >>> >>> Thank you for your thoughtful comments on the proposal. I understand >>> your concerns about the criteria for larger IPv6 allocations and the >>> emphasis on network-related justification rather than IPv4 holdings or fee >>> structures. >>> >>> However, I would like to highlight the situation faced by members from >>> less developed countries where the implementation of IPv6 is truly >>> necessary. Many of these new members may not be aware that they are >>> eligible for a larger IPv6 block based on their circumstances. The explicit >>> inclusion of this information in the policy is crucial because, without it, >>> these members might not realize they qualify for more substantial resources. >>> >>> While I agree that a detailed network justification is necessary, it's >>> important to ensure that members understand their eligibility for larger >>> blocks. *The document you mentioned outlines the requirements for a /23 >>> IPv4 assignment. If a member meets these requirements of a /23, they are >>> simultaneously eligible for a larger IPv6 block.* However, due to the >>> lack of clear guidance in the policy, some members may continue to use IPv6 >>> in a suboptimal way, such as in multi-homing scenarios, because they don't >>> have sufficient IPv6 space. >>> >>> Ensuring that the policy is clear and accessible can help these members >>> better utilize IPv6, supporting broader adoption and more efficient network >>> operations. >>> >>> *With Regards,* >>> *Rafeeun Noby Babir* >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Aug 6, 2024 at 3:56 AM David Farmer via SIG-policy < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> I do not support this policy as written. Yes, it should be relatively >>>> easy for organizations to request initial allocations larger than /48. >>>> However, the justification for this should be based on information about >>>> their network, like the number of sites it has, from the ARIN policy. It >>>> should not be based on their IPv4 holdings. And it should most definitely >>>> not be based on the fee structure. It is logical to align block sizes with >>>> the fee structure. However, the fee structure should not be the basis for >>>> the justification of a larger block. >>>> >>>> Thanks. >>>> >>>> On Mon, Aug 5, 2024 at 4:03 AM Bertrand Cherrier via SIG-policy < >>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Dear SIG members, >>>>> >>>>> A new proposal "prop-160-v001: Change IPv6 Initial assignment to /44 >>>>> for >>>>> Organizations Eligible for /23 IPv4" >>>>> has been sent to the Policy SIG for review. >>>>> >>>>> It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting (OPM) at APNIC 58 on >>>>> Friday, 6 September 2024. >>>>> >>>>> https://conference.apnic.net/58/program/program/index.html#/day/8/ >>>>> >>>>> 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? >>>>> - 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 appended below as well as available >>>>> at: >>>>> >>>>> http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-160 >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> Bertrand, Shaila, and Anupam >>>>> APNIC Policy SIG Chairs >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> >>>>> prop-160-v001: Change IPv6 Initial assignment to /44 for Organizations >>>>> Eligible for /23 IPv4 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> >>>>> Proposer: Md. Rafeeun Noby Babir ([email protected]) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 1. Problem Statement >>>>> ------------------------ >>>>> The current minimum allocation for Initial IPv6 assignments is a /48 >>>>> prefix. While this provides a significant pool of addresses, it can >>>>> create challenges for organizations implementing multihoming and >>>>> managing multiple sites, particularly for those that are new to IPv6. >>>>> >>>>> Organizations that qualify for a /23 IPv4 allocation have demonstrably >>>>> justified a requirement for more than a single /48 IPv6 address pool. >>>>> >>>>> A /48 prefix can be cumbersome to subnet efficiently for deployments >>>>> across various locations or with multiple internet service providers >>>>> (ISPs) in a multihomed environment. This can discourage organizations, >>>>> especially new adopters of IPv6, from transitioning due to concerns >>>>> about address space management complexity. >>>>> >>>>> 2. Objective of policy change >>>>> -------------------------------- >>>>> This proposal advocates for changing the initial allocation of IPv6 >>>>> address blocks to /44 from /48 for organizations that are eligible for >>>>> a >>>>> /23 IPv4 allocation under the current APNIC policies. >>>>> This proposal aims to achieve greater alignment between IPv6 >>>>> allocations >>>>> and IPv4 delegations [5]. >>>>> As per the APNIC Fee Schedule, no additional fee [3] would be required >>>>> for this increased allocation. >>>>> >>>>> 3. Situation in other regions >>>>> ------------------------------- >>>>> ARIN: Similar policy has been adopted (6.5.8.2. Initial Assignment >>>>> Size) [2]. More than 1 but less than or equal to 12 sites justified, >>>>> receives a /44 assignment. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 4. Proposed Policy Change >>>>> ----------------------------- >>>>> Current Policy text : >>>>> >>>>> 8.2. Initial IPv6 allocations [1] >>>>> 8.2.1. Account holders with existing IPv4 space >>>>> Subject to Section 8.1., existing IPv4 address space may be considered >>>>> in determining the initial IPv6 allocation size. APNIC applies a >>>>> minimum >>>>> size for IPv6 allocations to facilitate prefix-based filtering. >>>>> APNIC account holders that have been delegated an IPv4 address block >>>>> from APNIC, but have no IPv6 space, can qualify for an appropriately >>>>> sized IPv6 block under the matching IPv6 policy. For example, an >>>>> account >>>>> holder that has received an IPv4 IXP assignment will be eligible to >>>>> receive an IPv6 IXP assignment. >>>>> The size of the IPv6 delegation for requestors that meet this >>>>> criterion >>>>> will be based on the following: >>>>> * An account holder that has an IPv4 allocation is eligible for a /32 >>>>> IPv6 address block. >>>>> * An account holder that has an IPv4 assignment is eligible for a /48 >>>>> IPv6 address block. >>>>> If an APNIC account holder wishes to receive an initial allocation or >>>>> assignment larger than the sizes described above, the account holder >>>>> will need to apply under the alternative criteria described in Section >>>>> 8.2.2. and Section 9.1 below. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Policy text will be changed : >>>>> * An account holder that has a /24 IPv4 assignment is eligible for a >>>>> /48 >>>>> IPv6 address block. >>>>> New Policy text will be added : >>>>> * An account holder that has a /23 IPv4 assignment is eligible for a >>>>> /44 >>>>> IPv6 address block. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 5. Advantages / Disadvantages >>>>> ---------------------------------- >>>>> Advantages: >>>>> Alignment with IPv4 Allocation: Organizations qualifying for a /23 >>>>> IPv4 >>>>> allocation have demonstrably justified a need for a larger address >>>>> pool. >>>>> Aligning the minimum IPv6 allocation with this level reflects similar >>>>> requirements in a larger IPv6 address space. >>>>> Improved Efficiency for Multihoming and Multi-site Deployments: A /44 >>>>> prefix offers greater flexibility for organizations to subnet and >>>>> manage >>>>> their address space effectively across multiple locations or ISPs in a >>>>> multihomed environment. >>>>> Encouraging IPv6 Adoption: Increasing the minimum allocation cost (in >>>>> terms of address space size) can incentivize new organizations to >>>>> adopt >>>>> IPv6, accelerating the overall transition within the region. >>>>> >>>>> Disadvantages: >>>>> >>>>> 6. Impact on resource holders >>>>> -------------------------------- >>>>> >>>>> 7. References >>>>> -------------- >>>>> [1] Section 8.2 Initial IPv6 allocations. >>>>> https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/resources#a_h_8_2 >>>>> >>>>> [2] IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policies for the ARIN Region >>>>> https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/nrpm/nrpm.txt >>>>> >>>>> [3] APNIC Fee Calculation >>>>> >>>>> https://www.apnic.net/about-apnic/corporate-documents/documents/membership/member-fee-schedule/ >>>>> >>>>> [4] New Member fee examples >>>>> https://www.apnic.net/get-ip/get-ip-addresses-asn/ >>>>> >>>>> [5] Section 6.1. Minimum and maximum IPv4 delegations >>>>> https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/resources#a_h_6_1 >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/[email protected]/ >>>>> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> =============================================== >>>> David Farmer Email:[email protected] >>>> Networking & Telecommunication Services >>>> Office of Information Technology >>>> University of Minnesota >>>> 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815 >>>> Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952 >>>> =============================================== >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/[email protected]/ >>>> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> -- >> =============================================== >> David Farmer Email:[email protected] >> Networking & Telecommunication Services >> Office of Information Technology >> University of Minnesota >> 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815 >> Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952 >> =============================================== >> > > > -- > > > > > > -- =============================================== David Farmer Email:[email protected] Networking & Telecommunication Services Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952 ===============================================
_______________________________________________ SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/[email protected]/ To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
