Copyright (c) 2002 Japan Network Information Center Proposal for IPv6 Policy for Essential Infrastructure in the AP region Izumi Okutani IP Address Section Japan Network Information Center Address Policy SIG 2002 Sep

2 Copyright (c) 2002 Japan Network Information CenterContents I. Current Status of IPv6 policy II. Comparison of RIR's policy III. Problem with the Current Status IV. Proposed AP policy V. Conclusion

3 Copyright (c) 2002 Japan Network Information Center Current Status of IPv6 policy Joint IPv6 policy by three RIRs were introduced with the principle of consistent policy across the regions June 2002 Joint IPv6 policy completed July 2002 Joint IPv6 policy implemented by all RIRs No Major Problem in Practice

Copyright (c) 2002 Japan Network Information Center However… IPv6 policy for “Essential Infrastructure” varies by region

5 Copyright (c) 2002 Japan Network Information Center Definition of Essential Infrastructure Infrastructure considered to be inevitable in the operation of the Internet and those currently specified in ARIN’s micro- allocation policy Note: Strict definition of the Essential Infrastructure is not in the scope of this presentation

6 Copyright (c) 2002 Japan Network Information Center Comparison of RIR's policy for Essential Infrastructure Comparison of RIR's policy for Essential Infrastructure

7 Copyright (c) 2002 Japan Network Information Center RIPE NCC Assignment to IXP –May receive address space if meet the definition as IXP –/48 will be assigned as the standard –/64 will be assigned if it will never need more than a single network Assignment to Root DNS –The same as the size of the minimum allocation to LIRs valid at the time of the assignment –Should not use the address space to provide any services not related to the root server –Assignment must be returned from the organisation if the operational responsibility for a DNS root server move to a new organisation

8 Copyright (c) 2002 Japan Network Information CenterARIN Defined as a part of micro-allocation policy –IXP, core DNS service providers, RIR and IANA networks –Should be no longer than /48 for IPv6 –Multiple allocations may be granted Allocation to IXP –allocated from specific blocks reserved only for this purpose –Exchange point operators must provide justification for the allocation Other micro-allocations –allocated out of other blocks reserved for micro-allocation purposes –a list of the blocks will be publicly available

9 Copyright (c) 2002 Japan Network Information CenterAPNIC IXP Assignment –May request an assignment of no longer than a /64 –May make multiple assignments where justified

10 Copyright (c) 2002 Japan Network Information Center Summary of the Comparison No consistency among RIRs in root DNS and IXP assignments AP region has no fixed policy except assignments to IXP ARIN has the most simple policy and easily accommodates unexpected future essential infrastructure ARIN has covered most types of essential infrastructure

11 Copyright (c) 2002 Japan Network Information Center Problem with the Current Status “Essential Infrastructure” will receive different assignment size depending on the region No fixed policy in AP region except IXP assignments Must fix an AP policy for essential infrastructure which is also consistent with other regions

12 Copyright (c) 2002 Japan Network Information Center Proposal: Make AP policy consistent with ARIN Note: NIR network is added to the list

13 Copyright (c) 2002 Japan Network Information Center PROS –Minimum size to be registered into DB –Accommodates future unexpected growth –Consistent with ARIN and most cases in RIPE CONS –Assignments have already been made with /64 Existing holders may request for the upgrade, but renumbering is required –/64 may meet the needs sufficiently for a single network /48 Assignment to IXP

14 Copyright (c) 2002 Japan Network Information Center /48 Assignment to Root DNS PROS –Can be assigned out of /32 reserved for micro allocations –Consistent size with other essential infrastructure –Filtering issue can be resolved by making the address block list available to the public as a special case CONS –The risk to get filtered is higher than /32 –May encourage /48 routes announcements of other networks to the global internet

15 Copyright (c) 2002 Japan Network Information Center /48 Assignment to DNS for gTLD/ccTLD Registries PROS –Can be assigned out of /32 reserved for micro allocations –Consistent size with other essential infrastructure –Consistent with ARIN policy –Filtering issue can be resolved by making the address block list available to the public as a special case CONS –May encourage /48 routes announcements of other networks to the global Internet

16 Copyright (c) 2002 Japan Network Information Center /48 Assignment to IANA/RIR/NIR PROS –Can be assigned out of /32 reserved for micro allocations –Difficult to receive assignment from a particular ISP due to the nature of the organisation – Consistent with ARIN's policy CONS –No major technical problem by receiving PA assignments –Not desirable to make too many special cases

17 Copyright (c) 2002 Japan Network Information CenterConclusion Each has its pros and cons The important thing is to have a globally coordinated policy Consistent assignment size keeps it simple and easily accommodates unexpected future essential infrastructure Let’s fix a policy consistent with ARIN policy

18 Copyright (c) 2002 Japan Network Information Center Proposal for the AP Policy Note: NIR network is added to the list

19 Copyright (c) 2002 Japan Network Information CenterReference Global IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy RIPE NCC IPv6 Address Space Policy for Internet Exchange Points IPv6 Addresses for Internet Root Servers in the RIPE Region ARIN Policy : Micro-allocations APNIC APNIC Internet Exchange Point Address Request Form

20 Copyright (c) 2002 Japan Network Information Center Q&A