________________________________________________________________________ prop-076-v001: Requiring aggregation for IPv6 subsequent allocations ________________________________________________________________________ Authors: Tomohiro Fujisaki Akira Nakagawa Toshio Tachibana Fuminori Tanizaki Version: 1 Date: 29 July 2009 1. Introduction ---------------- This is a proposal to make it a condition that LIRs aggregate subsequent IPv6 allocations that they receive from APNIC. 2. Summary of the current problem ---------------------------------- The initial IPv6 address allocation criteria requires that LIRs: "Plan to provide IPv6 connectivity to organizations to which it will make assignments, by advertising that connectivity through its single aggregated address allocation."[1] However, there is no similar aggregation requirement in the criteria for subsequent allocations. For consistency, the routing requirement should be applied also in subsequent allocation criteria. 3. Situation in other RIRs --------------------------- LACNIC: The LACNIC community is currently discussing the following proposal to remove the requirement to announce an initial allocation as a single prefix in favour of announcing the prefix with the minimum possible level of disaggregation: 2007-01: Modifications to the IPv6 Prefix Initial Allocation Policy http://www.lacnic.net/documentos/politicas/LAC-2007-01v3-propuesta-en.pdf RIPE: The RIPE community is currently discussing the following proposal to remove routing requirements from IPv6 policy: 2009-06: Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2009-06.html AfriNIC and ARIN initial IPv6 allocation criteria require a plan to aggregate, with no requirement for aggregation for subsequent allocation criteria. Neither RIR is has any proposal to modify these criteria. 4. Details ----------- This is a proposal to add the requirement under the subsequent IPv6 allocation criteria to aggregate subsequent IPv6 allocations as a single prefix. 5. Pros/Cons ------------- 5.1 Advantages: - By describing clearly in the policy as a requirement, it may contribute to limiting routing expansion of the global IPv6 routing table in the future. 5.2 Disadvantages: - This proposal may just be a nonbinding requirement. - APNIC policy may be more strict than other regions if other RIR communities decided to remove aggregation requirement from their policy. 6. Effect on APNIC ------------------- APNIC members will be required to aggregate subsequent allocations as a single prefix. 7. Effect on NIRs ------------------ Same as above. 8. References -------------- [1] See section 5.2.1, "IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy" http://www.apnic.net/ipv6-address-policy#5.2.1