Transcript Global IPv6 Address Interim Policy Draft Open Issues and Discussion Summary Address Policy SIG / 13th APNIC Meeting Kosuke Ito Global IPv6 Interim Policy.

Global IPv6 Address Interim Policy Draft
Open Issues and Discussion Summary
Address Policy SIG / 13th APNIC Meeting
Kosuke Ito
Global IPv6 Interim Policy Editorial Team
IPv6 Promotion Council of Japan
Purpose of this session


Describe issues remained in “Interim”
draft
Achieve workable consensus on issues
from a global perspective
2
Remaining Issues in Interim
The Most Important Issue:

Initial Allocation Criteria
Others:

HD-Ratio for Initial and Subsequent

Requirement to LIR in sub-allocation
3
Initial Allocation Criteria
Justification of needs for 776sites is
High!
(776sites is coming from justification of /36 with HD-Ratio 0.80)


Raised in RIPE41 in January 2002
Also at JPNIC OPM
Q: How to relax?
1.
Changing # of sites required?
2.
Changing the period of needs? 2-year?
3.
Not using HD-Ratio?
4
Initial Allocation Criteria
(cont.)
At RIPE41, the consensus reached as

Any LIR can receive a minimum allocation



Must meet RIPE-NCC LIR requirement
But need a document saying they need one IPv6 address
Setting a new bootstrapping phase such as 2000 allocations for
each region
Motivation (for RIPE proposal):
 Conservation is not an issue if limited to 2000 per region.
 Ease of access to IPv6 addresses
Outcome:
 Substantial change must be made to Initial allocation.
5
Initial Allocation Criteria
(cont.)
Issues/comments raised on Global ML:
 Who is/can be an “LIR”?




End-sites should not have a /32.
Create another swamp like IPv4
/32 to everyone who wants it is horrible in
routing table
Compare to IPv4, this trial is very tiny
portion of whole IPv6 space
6
Initial Allocation Criteria
(cont.)
A modified proposal to RIPE consensus raised in
Global ML to prevent an end-user to receive a
/32 block:
“Organization who assigns and registers
/48s to organizations other than itself”
And maybe add
“... and signs a contract that states that they intend to
assign and register /48s to third parties, and that the
/32 (or whatever) will be void if no /48s for other
organizations are registered in one year (?).”
7
Initial Allocation Criteria
(cont.)
Proposal (from Editorial team):
Replacing Section 5.2.1. “Initial allocation
criteria”
In order to reduce address space fragmentation and
increase the likelihood that routes can be aggregated,
end sites should obtain address space from their
connectivity providers as opposed to directly from the
RIR/NIRs. Having RIR/NIRs allocate address space
directly to end sites in general is known to lead to
unscalable routing, since the routes to those end sites
will not aggregate.
8
Initial Allocation Criteria
(cont.)
Cont. sec5.2.1
Thus, allocations of large address blocks (i.e.,
much larger than /48s) are made to
organizations that assign /48s to organizations
other than itself, and also provide connectivity
for those organizations. Specifically:
-Organizations requesting address space must
be LIRs (see Section 2.6).
And more…
9
Initial Allocation Criteria
(cont.)
Cont. sec5.2.1
Organizations requesting address space:
•must not be end sites.
•will provide connectivity for the organizations it
has assigned /48s to by advertising such
connectivity through the single aggregate
assigned to that organization.
And more….
10
Initial Allocation Criteria
(cont.)
Cont. sec5.2.1
•Organizations requesting address space have a
plan for allocating address space (e.g., /48s) to
other organizations, with the number of such
allocations likely to result in at least 200 such
assignments over the next two years.
•Organziations who are granted initial
allocations, but after two years no longer satisfy
the requirements above, are subject to having
their allocations revoked.
11
Utilization Metric: HD-Ratio

Not much discussed, but there are some
comments heard:



(looks like) too complicated (by ARIN)
Should be simple like XX% (by RIPE)
Favor for large space holders. Should be capped at
something like 10% (by JP OPM)
Q: Is “HD-Ratio a reasonable measure of
utilization?

Possible amendments:


Drop the equation like expression
List the conversion table to refer, no math-like equation
12
Requirement to LIR in sub-allocation

True delegation to LIR



Responsible for understanding whole range of
allocated space, and for reverse delegation
Need to know and register subordinate ISP’s
assignment activity, otherwise no subsequent
allocation is made by RIR/NIR
There are some comments that it is too much
work to do for LIR.

But this is trade off to implement the default
allocation size and true delegation to LIR.
13
To Do in this session

Come up some workable consensus
from AP community


On the issues explained
To take to global ML as proposal
14
Next
•Final input from ARIN community in April
•amend the current draft and final call
•Last approval by RIPE42 in the end of April
* Replace the provisional by the Interim!
Subscribe and comment on Global IPv6 ML:
[email protected]
Thank you.
15