CARVIEW

MOTORHOMES

Select Language

HTTP/2 200 date: Mon, 14 Jul 2025 02:51:35 GMT content-type: text/html; charset=utf-8 cf-ray: 95edb81b1f9cc1b0-BLR cf-cache-status: DYNAMIC last-modified: Tue, 30 Jul 2024 05:42:34 GMT vary: Accept-Encoding x-content-type-options: nosniff strict-transport-security: max-age=15552000; preload server: cloudflare content-encoding: gzip [sig-policy] prop-087: IPv6 address allocation fordeployment purposes

[sig-policy] prop-087: IPv6 address allocation fordeployment purposes

To: Policy SIG <sig-policy at apnic dot net>
Subject: [sig-policy] prop-087: IPv6 address allocation fordeployment purposes
From: Randy Bush <randy at psg dot com>
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 10:45:50 +0200
Delivered-to: sig-policy at mailman dot apnic dot net
List-archive: <https://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-policy>
List-help: <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=help>
List-id: APNIC SIG on resource management policy <sig-policy.lists.apnic.net>
List-post: <mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net>
List-subscribe: <https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy>, <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy>, <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=unsubscribe>
User-agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) Emacs/22.3 Mule/5.0 (SAKAKI)

The following proposal, "IPv6 address allocation for deployment
purposes," has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.  It will be
presented at the Policy SIG at APNIC 30.
We invite you to review and comment on the proposal on the mailing list
before the meeting.
The comment period on the mailing list before an APNIC meeting is an
important part of the policy development process. We encourage you to
express your views on the proposal:
     - Do you support or oppose this proposal?
     - Does this proposal solve a problem you are experiencing? If so,
       tell the community about your situation.
     - Do you see any disadvantages in this proposal?
     - Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear?
     - What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more
       effective?
Information about this policy proposal is available at:
       https://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-087
randy, Ching-Heng, and Terence
________________________________________________________________________
prop-087-v001: IPv6 address allocation for deployment purposes
________________________________________________________________________
Author:    Tomohiro Fujisaki <fujisaki at syce dot net>
Version:   1
Date:      26 July 2010
1.  Introduction
----------------
This is a proposal to add alternative criteria for receiving a larger
than /32 initial IPv6 allocation during the initial IPv6 deployment
phase (from now until 2013).  Under this proposal, a network can
justify more than a /32 if the network is using deployment protocol
described in a RFC.
2.  Summary of the current problem
----------------------------------
Current IPv6 address allocation policy is basically based on number of
subscribers the applicant will have [1], but this does not allow
sufficient allocation size to adequately deploy some IPv6
protocols. For example, the "6rd" protocol needs more than /32 to
implement adequately in an ISP network due to technical reasons
[2]. Therefore, criteria to allow allocations based on technical
justification is necessary.
3.  Situation in other RIRs
---------------------------
ARIN has two related draft policies under discussion:
     2010-9: IPv6 for 6rd
     https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2010_9.html
     2010-12: IPv6 Subsequent Allocation
     https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2010_12.html
RIPE has discussed the possibility of a policy proposal for 6rd,
but no formal proposal has yet been submitted.
There has been no similar discussion in AfriNIC or LACNIC.
4.  Details
-----------
This proposal contains two phases:
     1. IPv6 deployment phase (now until 2013)
     2. After the deployment phase
It is proposed that:
4.1 In the IPv6 deployment phase (til 2013), networks using an IPv6
    deployment protocol specified in an Standard track RFC are eligible
    for initial allocations larger than a /32.
    Requestors must specifically refer to the deployment protocol they
    are using and the number of the RFC describing it.
4.2 After the deployment phase ends, networks that have received an
    allocation under the criteria described in section 4.1 above must
    demonstrate the usage of that address space.
    - If the network can justify continued use of the larger than /32
      address allocation by demonstrating it is in accordance with the
      HD-Ratio based utilization policy, the network may keep the entire
      address block.
    - If the network cannot demonstrate that it is in accordance with
      the HD-Ratio based utilization policy, it will need to return the
      excess portion of its address block to APNIC.
5.  Pros/Cons
-------------
Advantages:
    - This proposed policy makes it easier to implement a IPv6 network.
      For example, new deployment protocols such as "6rd" can be
      implemented easily with this proposal.
Disadvantages:
    - Some deployment protocols need IPv6 address blocks larger than
      current criteria and this might waste IPv6 addresses.
6.  Effect on APNIC
-------------------
APNIC members can obtain larger IPv6 address blocks for IPv6 deployment.
7.  Effect on NIRs
------------------
NIRs can select to implement this proposal or not.
8.  References
--------------
[1] See section 5.2, "Initial allocation" in "IPv6 address allocation
    and assignment policy"
    https://www.apnic.net/policy/ipv6-address-policy#5.2.3
[2] See section 11, "IPv6 Address Space Usage" in "IPv6 Rapid Deployment
    on IPv4 Infrastructures (6rd)"
    https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-softwire-ipv6-6rd-10#section-11

Original Source | Taken Source