________________________________________________________________________

prop-034-v001:   IPv6 portable assignment for end user organisations 
________________________________________________________________________


Author:     Jordi Palet Martinez, Consulintel

Version:    1

Date:       29 May 2006

SIG:        Policy




Introduction
------------

This policy allows end user organisations that multihome, plan to 
multihome or require a portable IPv6 assignment for other 
administrative/technical reasons, to actually receive it.



Summary of current problem
--------------------------
In IPv4 address space, end user organisations that currently 
multihome, plan to multihome or have a similar need for a portable 
block, can request a portable IPv4 assignment from APNIC if they 
meet the IPv4 multihoming criteria. However, there is no equivalent
policy for an end user organisation wishing to multihome using IPv6
addresses.

Portable IPv6 assignments are already available to organisations
that meet the IXP or critical infrastructure criteria.



Situation in other RIRs
-----------------------
All the RIRs are currently discussing a similar proposal.



Details of your proposal
------------------------

Criteria for portable IPv6 assignments:

    To qualify for a portable assignment, the organisation:

        - must not be an IPv6 Local Internet Registry (LIR); and,
        - must qualify for an IPv4 portable assignment from APNIC 
          under current IPv4 policies. This applies whether or not
          the organisation holds IPv4 portable assignment.


Initial assignment size:

    The minimum size of the assignment is /32. However, a larger 
    assignment can be provided if duly documented and justified.


Subsequent assignment size:

    Whenever possible, further assignments will be made from adjacent
    address blocks, but only if duly documented and justified.


Assignment 'super block':

    Assignments will be made from a separate 'super block' to allow LIRs
    to filter them, if required.


Lifetime of policy:

    This policy is an interim solution until an alternative technical
    solution to multihoming in IPv6 can be developed by the community.
    After the technical community develops an alternative and deployable
    solution to multihoming in IPv6, this  portable IPv6 assignment 
    policy for multihomed organisations would expire.
    

Expiry of assignments:

    Because of the probable medium to long-term consequences of this 
    policy on routing tables, any assignments made under this proposed
    policy should be reclaimed by APNIC three years after a viable
    alternative solution to multihoming in IPv6 is developed. 

    End user organisations that wish to avoid renumbering out of the
    assigned IPv6 prefix would be able to opt to become an LIR, and,
    if they qualify, receive an allocation that includes the
    same prefix the organisation was originally assigned.



Advantages and disadvantages of adopting the proposed policy
------------------------------------------------------------

Advantages:

    In IPv4, there are organisations that qualify for a portable 
    assignments, or that could opt to become an LIR. This may be because
    they need either to be multihomed or have other administrative or 
    technical reasons for needing a portable address block.

    This is currently not the case for IPv6, and is perceived as a clear
    barrier for deployment of IPv6 in some organisations. This policy 
    proposal addresses that barrier by means of providing a direct 
    assignment from APNIC.

    Any organisation receiving such an assignment would not be allowed
    to make further assignments to other external organisations, but 
    instead only to assign subnets internally within their own 
    facilities.

    Assigning a /32 would make those blocks behave as other regular LIR
    allocated ones and follow generally accepted routing filtering 
    practices. At the same time, the blocks would be identifiable as 
    belonging to a special 'super block'. This would also allow 
    organisations to become an LIR and avoid the need for renumbering.

    With this policy, we avoid the unfair situation among different
    regions, and meet the needs of any organisation that required 
    portable address space. Organisations with a portable assignment 
    will be in an equal position once the community agrees with a 
    long-term technical solution and will have to either move to this 
    new solution or become an LIR, if they qualify. Newcomers will also 
    be in the same position. Some organisations will not opt for 
    portable assignments under this policy because they do not need 
    it. This would avoid placing them in an unfair situation.

    Those that do not believe in possible alternative solutions, but
    who prefer to go for a permanent portable assignment policy, have 
    no valid reasons to oppose this proposal, as the 'sunset period' 
    should only be in effect once a suitable solution had been agreed. 
    This proposal should not interfere with their plans.

    Some organisations may qualify to become an LIR now, and avoid using
    this temporary assignment. However if their only reason to become an
    LIR is to get a portable assignment, then it may a better control 
    for the routing table size in the long-term, if they use the option
    offered by this proposal. This would be fairer to the wider Internet      
    community.

    The 'temporary' nature of this assignment must be considered 
    long-term, as we may expect alternative solutions to be available 
    in around three to four years. This takes no account of a 
    transition period. Therefore, asking for a change after six or seven
    years should be acceptable to all.


Disadvantages:

    The possible effect of this proposal is the growth of global routing
    tables to levels that, together with the existing and forecast IPv4
    routing entries, could create significant issues for operators 
    unless vendors can provide products that address such issues. Even 
    if such technical solutions were found, the proposal could still 
    have a major impact on the cost and/or depreciation period for 
    infrastructure investments.

    For this reason, this proposal comes with a fixed 'sunset' period, 
    dependant upon the date when an alternative technically viable 
    solution is available and accepted by the Internet community.

    A temporary /32 assignment should not be seen as a waste of address
    space. It would bring with it the advantage of removing the needs 
    for new special filters and avoiding renumbering to those that could
    become LIRs.



Effect on APNIC members
-----------------------

N/A



Effect on NIRs
--------------

N/A

 

Acknowledgments
---------------

I would like to acknowledge input received for the first version of this
proposal from Marcelo Bagnulo and Lea Roberts.