________________________________________________________________________ prop-089: Additional criterion for final /8 allocations (and assignments) ________________________________________________________________________ Author: David Woodhouse Version: 1 Date: 11 January 2011 1. Introduction ---------------- This proposal seeks to restrict the availability of IPv4 allocations and assignments from the final /8 to those members who are responsibly working to ease the transition period to IPv6 as we reach the final stages of IPv4 exhaustion. 2. Summary ----------- APNIC shares with its members and their customers a collective responsibility to ensure manageable and scalable Internet growth[1]. It was once hoped that the transition to IPv6 would be completed long before the exhaustion of the IPv4 address space. The current 'crisis', if we can call it such, is can be attributed mostly to the fact that so many networks have been so slow to deploy IPv6. Even today, many organisations are not yet ready to deploy IPv6, and are hoping to receive further allocations of IPv4 address space. Such a continued expansion of IPv4-only usage by those without a viable transition plan will help to drag out the transition period and exacerbate the issue for everyone. A failure to deploy IPv6, even during the final stages of IPv4 exhaustion, demonstrates a clear failure to fulfil the above-mentioned responsibility. 3. Situation in other RIRs --------------------------- AfriNIC The 'IPv4 Soft Landing Proposal' includes a provision that any network receiving IPv4 addresses during the proposed second part of the "exhaustion phase" defined in the proposal will also be delegated IPv6 addresses if they do not have any yet: http://www.afrinic.net/docs/policies/AFPUB-2010-v4-005.htm ARIN: Policy Proposal 125, 'Efficient Utilization of IPv4 Requires Dual-Stack' was abandoned by the ARIN AC. The decision is currently being petitioned for re-inclusion of the proposal for discussion by the ARIN community: http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/2010-December/019054.html RIPE: Policy Proposal 2010-2, 'Allocations from the last /8' includes a provision that allocations shall only be made to LIRs if they have already received an IPv6 allocation. http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2010-02.html There is no similar proposal in the LACNIC region. 4. Details ----------- This is a proposal that amends the IPv4 allocation and assignment criteria to including the following additional criterion: - To qualify for an allocation or assignment of IPv4, an organization should have a viable IPv6 deployment. The meaning of what a "viable IPv6 deployment" is will depend on the type of organization is requesting the IPv4 addresses. A couple of examples are included below for clarity: - Hosting service or organisation offering public-facing services Each service the organisation offers on the newly-delegated IP addresses should be accessible by IPv6. It would not need to be on the same host, the same interface, or even in the same data centre. If accessed by DNS, it should be accessed using the same hostname. - ISP or network provider The provider's default installation to new customers should include functional IPv6 connectivity, and IPv6 should be available to all end users on request within reasonable time/cost. As it isn't practical to require providers to instantly upgrade all existing equipment, this IPv6 requirement applies to new deployments which presumably use new equipment. 5. Pros/Cons ------------- Advantages: - This proposal will accelerate the adoption of IPv6 and help to reduce the transition period. Even if the proposal fails completely in that aim, the proposed policy should still reduce the number of allocations to those organisations who would needlessly prolong the transition by deploying more IPv4-only services and networks at a time when all responsible organisations are fixing their existing legacy systems. Disadvantages: - Those organisation who had intended to further delay their inevitable adoption of IPv6, and exacerbate the problems by continuing to deploy IPv4-only services, will not be able to receive IPv4 addresses from the final /8. Effectively, the exhaustion will reach them just a little sooner than it reaches everybody else. 6. Effect on APNIC ------------------- The principal effect would be accelerated adoption of IPv6 by APNIC members. IPv4 exhaustion will affect APNIC members who have not yet taken steps to deal with it, before it affects those who have fulfilled their long-foreseen responsibility to adapt. 7. Effect on NIRs ------------------ It is expected that NIRs would implement a matching policy for the final allocation phase. 8. References -------------- [1] Section 6.3, " Collective responsibility" in "Policies for IPv4 address space management in the Asia Pacific region" http://www.apnic.net/policy/add-manage-policy#6.3