[rpd] Re: [AFRINIC-rpd] [sig-policy] prop-111-v001: Request-based expansion of IPv6 default allocation size

[Owen DeLong]

I would like to strongly encourage AfriNIC to move away from /29 reservations
and use sparse allocation (or bisection).

APNIC switched to this some time ago, but the /29s of which they speak are
the reservations between early IPv6 allocations.

As you may know, I have some operational experience with IPv6 address plans
for a wide variety of organizations. That experience is what lead to the structure
of the current ARIN IPv6 allocation and assignment policies. While I will not
presume to claim that those policies are perfect, I do believe that they provide
a much better (and easier to understand) framework for allocating/assigning
IPv6 addresses than the other current policies at this time.

Owen

On Jan 28, 2014, at 11:53 PM, Ernest <ernest at afrinic.net> wrote:

> FYI,
> 
> A new policy proposal in the Asia Pacific region suggests a minimum
> IPv6 allocation of up to a /29 (based on the fact that currently, an
> allocated /32 is picked out of a reserved /29).
> 
> As this is the same IPv6 reservation practice at AFRINIC, you may
> find this proposal interesting. (The proposal text follows below).
> 
> Regards,
> Ernest.
> 
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> prop-111-v001: Request-based expansion of IPv6 default allocation size
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 
>> Author:       Tomohiro Fujisaki
>>              fujisaki at syce.net
>> 
>> 
>> 1. Problem statement
>> --------------------
>> 
>>   Currently, IPv6 minimum allocation size to LIRs is defined as /32 in
>>   the "IPv6 address allocation and assignment policy", while APNIC
>>   currently reserves up to /29 for each /32 allocation. It's better to
>>   expand this minimum allocation size up to /29 since:
>> 
>>   - For traffic control purpose, some LIRs announce address blocks
>>     longer than /32 (e.g. /35). However, some ISPs set filters to block
>>     address size longer than /32. If LIRs have multiple /32, they can
>>     announce these blocks and its reachability will be better than
>>     longer prefix.
>> 
>>   - If an LIR needs address blocks larger than /32, LIRs may tend to
>>     announce as a single prefix if a /29 is allocated initially at
>>     once. i.e., total number of announced prefixes in case 1 may be
>>     smaller than in case 2.
>> 
>>     case 1:
>>     The LIR obtains /29 at the beginning of IPv6 network construction.
>> 
>>     case 2:
>>     The LIR obtains /32, and /31, /30 additionally with the subsequent
>>     allocation mechanism.
>> 
>>   - Before sparse allocation mechanism implemented in late 2008, /29
>>     was reserved for all /32 holders by sequence allocation mechanism
>>     in the early years. It is possible to use these reserved
>>     blocks efficiently with this modification.
>> 
>> 
>> 2. Objective of policy change
>> -----------------------------
>> 
>>   This proposal modifies the eligibility for an organization to receive
>>   an initial IPv6 allocation up to a /29 by request basis.
>> 
>> 
>> 3. Situation in other regions
>> -----------------------------
>> 
>>   RIPE-NCC:
>>   The policy "Extension of IPv6 /32 to /29 on a per-allocation vs
>>   per-LIR basis" is adopted in RIPE-NCC and LIRs in RIPE region can get
>>   up to /29 by default.
>> 
>> 
>> 4. Proposed policy solution
>> ----------------------------
>> 
>>   - Change the text to "5.2.2 Minimum initial allocation size" of
>>     current policy document as below:
>> 
>>     Organizations that meet the initial allocation criteria are
>>     eligible to receive an initial allocation of /32. For allocations
>>     up to /29 no additional documentation is necessary.
>> 
>>   - Add following text in the policy document:
>> 
>>     for Existing IPv6 address space holders
>> 
>>     LIRs that hold one or more IPv6 allocations are able to request
>>     extension of each of these allocations up to a /29 without meeting
>>     the utilization rate for subsequent allocation and providing
>>     further documentation.
>> 
>> 
>> 5. Explain the advantages of the proposal
>> -----------------------------------------
>> 
>>   - It will be possible for LIRs to control traffic easier.
>>   - It is possible to use current reserved blocks efficiently.
>> 
>> 
>> 6. Explain the disadvantages of the proposal
>> --------------------------------------------
>> 
>>   Some people may argue this will lead to inefficient utilization of
>>   IPv6 space. However, the space up to /29 is reserved by APNIC
>>   secretariat for each /32 allocation.
>> 
>> 
>> 7. Impact on resource holders
>> -----------------------------
>>   NIRs must implement this policy if it is implemented by APNIC.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rpd mailing list
> rpd at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd