Global IPv6 Address Interim Policy Draft Open Issues and Discussion Summary Address Policy SIG / 13 th APNIC Meeting Kosuke Ito Global IPv6 Interim Policy Editorial Team IPv6 Promotion Council of Japan

2 Purpose of this session Describe issues remained in “ Interim ” draft Achieve workable consensus on issues from a global perspective

3 Remaining Issues in Interim The Most Important Issue: Initial Allocation Criteria Others: HD-Ratio for Initial and Subsequent Requirement to LIR in sub-allocation

4 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?

5 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.

6 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

7 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 (?). ”

8 Initial Allocation Criteria (cont.) Proposal (from Editorial team): Replacing Section “ 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.

9 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 …

10 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 ….

11 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.

12 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

13 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.

14 To Do in this session Come up some workable consensus from AP community On the issues explained To take to global ML as proposal

15 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: Thank you. Next