________________________________________________________________________ prop-035-v001: IPv6 portable assignment for multihoming ________________________________________________________________________ Authors: Katsuyasu Toyama Takashi Arano Tomohiro Fujisaki Toshinori Ishii Kosuke Ito Dai Nishino, Noriaktsu Ohishi Izumi Okutani Version: 1 Date: 2 June 2006 SIG: Policy Introduction ------------ This policy allows 'end-sites' to be assigned IPv6 portable addresses only if the end-sites are multihomed, or plan to be multihomed. Summary of the current problem ------------------------------ The current policy does not allow IPv6 portable assignment to any end-sites. This obstructs end-site organizations which need redundancy in internet connectivity for stable network operation. Shim6, another multihoming technology discussed in IETF, is not a perfect replacement of the current multihoming technology using BGP due to traffic engineering. In addition, it will take time to standardize and implement Shim6. Situation in other RIRs ----------------------- ARIN has been discussing the IPv6 Provider-independent address. The draft was proposed in 2005 and moved to the last call after the meeting consensus in April 2006. RIPE started PI discussion at RIPE in this May. AFRINIC and LACNIC discussed similar proposals recently in their Open Policy meetings. In those regions, the issue has been returned to their public mailing lists for further discussion. Note: APNIC uses the term "portable" rather than "provider-independent" (PI). Details ------- (1) Assignment target: End-sites which are multihomed or plan to be multihomed, regardless of their size. (2) Assignment criteria: (2-a) The end site which is assigned IPv6 portable address space must be multihomed using the assigned portable address space in three (3) months. (2-b) If the portable address space is not used for multihoming after three (3) months, the address space must be reclaimed. (2-c) The end site which is assigned IPv6 portable address space must pay the fee for the space. (3) Portable address space: (3-a) The portable assignment should be made from a specified block separate from address space used for portable allocations (3-b) The portable assignment size to an end-site should be the same size as in non-portable assignments, currently /48, or a shorter prefix if the end-site can justify it. Pros/Cons --------- Advantages: (1) Provides the solution for end-sites which require redundancy in IPv6 and currently not able to do so due to the lack of technical solutions. (2) Assignment of the portable address space is limited only to 'multihoming purposes'; only end-sites which are or planned to be multihomed can be assigned a portable address. This reduces the consumption of portable address space as well as the growth of the global routing table. (3) Portable assigned address space is separate from portable allocated address space, therefore: (3-1) It helps preventing 'punching holes' in the portable allocated address space because prefixes which are longer than /32 can be filtered in portable allocated space. (3-2) it is relatively easy to abandon the portable assigned address space in case some better techinical solutions are developed in the future. Disadvantages: It may lead to growth in the global routing table, but we think the growth is almost the same in case that providers and end-sites start using 'punching holes' for multihoming. Effect on APNIC --------------- No direct effect on the existing APNIC members, nor changes to the current IPv6 allocation criteria. Effect on NIRs -------------- NIR can adopt this policy at its discretion.