------------------------------------------------------------------------ prop-121-v001: Updating "Initial IPv6 allocation" policy ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Proposer: Jordi Palet Martinez jordi.palet@consulintel.es Problem Statement ----------------- The actual policy text (9.2.2. Account holders without existing IPv4 space) is assuming that an LIR will have more than 200 customers over a period of 2 years, or it is already an IPv4 LIR. However, it is a perfectly valid possibility to have small LIRs, which may be never will have 200 customers, for example they may have a dozen of big enterprise customers, or they may be a new LIR, not having any IPv4 addresses (we all know the run-out problem) or may choose to use a limited number of IPv4 addresses from their upstream providers, because they don't intend to provide IPv4 services. It is also possible that the LIR is planning for a longer term than just 2 years, for example a government with a national network which may take a longer period to deploy, connecting all kind of institutions at different levels (ministries, schools, health centres, municipalities, other public institutions, etc.). Objective of policy change -------------------------- To make sure that the policy is aligned with a wider set of possible IPv6 deployment cases, including those indicated in the previous section and facilitate the justification of the allocation/assignment size if a bigger address block (versus the default one) is requested. Situation in other regions -------------------------- This situation, concretely in the case of big initial IPv6 allocations to governments, has already occurred in RIPE, and the policy was updated to be able to make those allocations. In some cases, a few governments got delayed their deployments several years because the lack of an appropriate policy covering their case. Proposed policy solution ------------------------ Change some of the actual text as follows. Actual text: 9.2.2. Account holders without existing IPv4 space To qualify for an initial allocation of IPv6 address space, an organization must: 1. Be an LIR 2. Not be an end site 3. Plan to provide IPv6 connectivity to organizations to which it will make assignments. 4. Meet one of the two following criteria: - Have a plan for making at least 200 assignments to other organizations within two years, or - Be an existing LIR with IPv4 allocations from APNIC or an NIR, which will make IPv6 assignments or sub-allocations to other organizations and announce the allocation in the inter- domain routing system within two years. Private networks (those not connected to the public Internet) may also be eligible for an IPv6 address space allocation provided they meet equivalent criteria to those listed above. New text: 9.2.2. Account holders without existing IPv4 space To qualify for an initial allocation of IPv6 address space, an organization must: 1. Be an LIR 2. Not be an end site 3. Plan, within two years, to provide IPv6 connectivity to other organizations/end-users to which it will make assignments. The allocation size, in case an address block bigger than the default one (as indicated in 9.2.1.) is requested, will be based on the number of users, the extent of the organisation's infrastructure, the hierarchical and geographical structuring of the organisation, the segmentation of infrastructure for security and the planned longevity of the allocation. Private networks (those not connected to the public Internet) may also be eligible for an IPv6 address space allocation provided they meet equivalent criteria to those listed above. Advantages of the proposal -------------------------- Fulfilling the objective above indicated, so allowing a more realistic alignment of the policy text with market reality under the IPv4 exhaustion situation. Disadvantages of the proposal ----------------------------- Possible abuse of the policy, which may be done equally creating new LIRs, and it is expected that the evaluation process of a request from APNIC will avoid it. Impact on resource holders -------------------------- None. References ---------- Links to the RIPE and LACNIC texts on request.