prop-164: Allocations of IPv6 Resources longer than a /32 with a nibble boundary alignment

This policy change will reduce the minimum allocation size from a /32 prefix to a /36 prefix. This is to reduce the minimum amount of resources which a member has to apply for, which in turn reduces the allocation of resources which are unnecessary and allows them to maintain more accurate Whois/RDAP records.

Christopher Hawker and Luke Thompson

prop-164-v001

prop-164-v002

prop-164-v004

prop-164-v005

This Impact assessment is for v005

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.

prop-164-v002-IA.txt