Dear SIG Members,
Please find below the Secretariat impact assessment for prop-164-v005:
Allocations of IPv6 Resources longer than a /32 with a nibble boundary alignment
Dave Phelan
Policy Manager and Senior Network Analyst
-----
1. APNIC’s Understanding of the Proposed Policy
APNIC understands this proposal as reducing the minimum IPv6 allocation size
from /32 to /40, while requiring allocations to align on nibble boundaries.
The proposal also introduces explicit sparse allocation and reservation
language, allows certain larger IPv6 holders to return space and reduce their
allocation size, and supports future growth from reserved space.
Secretariat is requesting clarification on whether existing holders of a /32 or
larger allocation may reduce to either a /36 or /40, or only to a /40, as
currently suggested by the proposal text.
2. Impact of Proposed Policy on Registry and Addressing System
Registry systems would need to support IPv6 allocations smaller than /32,
including /40 allocations and other nibble-aligned allocation sizes.
The proposal also raises questions about sparse allocation and reservation
handling. APNIC already uses sparse
delegation,(https://www.apnic.net/about-apnic/corporate-documents/documents/resource-guidelines/ipv6-guidelines/#sparse
) and the proposal may require APNIC to explicitly manage or describe
reservations in a way it does not currently do.
Key registry issues include:
what happens if a suitable /28 is not available;
whether reservations are required for existing allocations;
how to handle existing allocations where a full /28 is not available;
whether explicit reservations are needed given APNIC’s existing sparse
delegation model.
3. Impact of Proposed Policy on APNIC Operation/Services
APNIC procedures would need to be updated for smaller IPv6 allocations,
nibble-boundary sizing, return of excess IPv6 space, and any explicit
reservation process.
The proposal may also require APNIC to explain sparse allocation practices more
clearly to the community, particularly if policy text refers to reserved space
and future expansion.
Additional delays may be experienced due to workloads if large numbers of
account holders return and re-size existing allocations, or increase
assignments to allocations
4. Legal Impact of Policy
No material legal issues identified
Suggest changing “member” to “account holder” in Section 8.1.1 for consistency
5. Implementation
If this policy was to reach consensus the policy proposal will require:
changes to APNIC-127.
changes to back-end registry systems to allow for nibble sized allocations
starting from /40
updating member-facing information and guidence
update internal staff guidance and procedures
creation of processes for reducing existing allocations
clarify sparse allocation and reservation handling
If prop-164 and prop-170 both reached consensus, drafting revisions would be
required to ensure the policies do not conflict.
Implementation would be approximately 9 months subject to call for editorial
comments.
_______________________________________________
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/[email protected]/
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
