________________________________________________________________________ prop-073-v001: Automatic allocation/assignment of IPv6 ________________________________________________________________________ Authors: Terry Manderson Andy Linton Version: 1 Date: 6 July 09 1. Introduction ---------------- This proposal directs the APNIC Secretariat to automatically assess and provide IPv6 resources to APNIC members that currently hold IPv4 resources in the APNIC registry but who do not hold IPv6 resources in the APNIC registry. The amount of IPv6 address space would be based on those current APNIC managed IPv4 holdings so that there would be no increase in their fees in accordance with the new APNIC fee schedule. 2. Summary of current problem ------------------------------ It is well understood that the final allocations of IPv4 address space are drawing very close. It is also well understood that the uptake of IPv6 is less than ideal and as a result the community is scrambling for both policy and technical answers to extend the viable life of IPv4. As a community, we have done much to promote the adoption of IPv6. This policy proposal extends the efforts by removing the APNIC application barrier to receiving IPv6 address space. 3. Situation in other RIRs --------------------------- RIPE: 2008-02,"Assigning IPv6 PA to Every LIR", a similar, but certainly not the same, proposal, was withdrawn by the author due to lack of support. There had been concern about the impact on member fees and that the proposal would make IPv6 a commodity. http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2008-02.html There have been no similar proposals in other regions. 4. Details of the proposal --------------------------- This a proposal that APNIC issue an appropriately sized IPv6 delegation to: - Any APNIC member that holds APNIC-managed IPv4 addresses, but does not yet have APNIC-managed IPv6 addresses - Any APNIC member in future that applies for and receives IPv4 addresses but has not yet received APNIC-managed IPv6 addresses The size of the IPv6 delegation made to the members described above will be based on the following criteria: - A member that has an IPv4 allocation shall be allocated an IPv6 /32 - A member that has received an IPv4 assignment under the multihoming policy shall be assigned an IPv6 /48 assgnment - A member that has received an IPv4 assignment under the IXP policy shall be assigned an IPv6 /48 It is the belief of the authors that an entity which has satisfied IPv4 criteria has done enough work to be assessed for IPv6 resources. This proposal does not stop members from applying for further IPv6 resources under current policies. A member should be given the opportunity to not automatically receive IPv6 resources. 5. Advantages and disadvantages of the proposal ------------------------------------------------ 5.1 Advantages This proposal: - Allows APNIC to engage with all IPv4 resource holders alerting them to the need to start work on deploying IPv6 addressing. - Couples the resource application process for IPv4 with IPv6 and increases member benefit by avoiding duplication in the application to APNIC. - Removes another barrier to IPv6 adoption by providing all eligible organisations with an IPv6 assignment or allocation. 5.2 Disadvantages One possible argument is that it assigns resources to an entity before it is requested by the entity as 'needed'. However, it appears that while the entity hasn't requested it, the IPv6 allocation is needed in a broader sense to remove barriers and promote IPv6 deployment. 6. Effect on APNIC members --------------------------- 6.1 Fees No member's fees will increase as a result of this proposal because under the APNIC fee schedule, assessed address fees are the greater of the IPv4 and IPv6 fees. This proposal was careful to ensure that IPv6 delegations would not increase a member's annual fee. 6.2 Responsibility A member would automatically acquire the responsibility to manage and maintain a IPv6 allocation in the APNIC registry framework. 6.3 Address/Internet number resource consumption There are about 1300 current APNIC members that do not hold an IPv6 allocation. Allocating a /32 to each of these members would result in approximately a /22 to /21 of IPv6 address space allocated to these 1300 members in total. The actual allocation would be less than this as some members would receive a /48. 7. Effect on NIRs ------------------ The impact on the NIR would depend if the NIR adopts this proposal for their constituency.