12th APNIC Open Policy Meeting

SIG: Joint IPv6/Address policy

Wednesday 29-30 August, Grand Hotel, Taipei

minutes

Meeting commenced: 16:10

Chair: Jun Murai, Takashi Arano, Seung-Min Lee

The Chair introduced the BOF and explained the agenda.

Contents

• IPv6 Addressing technology and policy developments
• Proposal of new IPv6 Address policy
• IPv6 allocation principles
• IPv6 trial in HiNet and policy issues
• An analysis of the IAB/IESG recommendation
• IPv6 allocation principles (revised)
• Proposal of new IPv6 Address policy (revised)
• Proposed extension of the bootstrap period for IPv6 allocations
• Proposal for provider independent IPv6 assignments for Internet exchanges

Presentations

IPv6 Addressing technology and policy developments

Randy Bush, ATT&T; Mirjam Kuehne, RIPE NCC; Steve Deering, Cisco Systems

This presentation described the coordinated efforts of the engineering and registry communities to separate policy issues from technical issues in IPv6 and summarised the recommendations for revising the existing IPv6 policy document. In particular, this presentation discussed:

• Minimum allocations
• IANA allocations to RIRs
• Assignment size recommendations
• Replacement of the former TLA/NLA/subTLA allocation structure
• Revision of the relevant RFCs

Questions and discussion

It was noted that there has been some thought given to the grandfathering of the original IPv6 allocations but that so far no concrete plans have been made.

Proposal of new IPv6 Address policy

Takashi Arano, Asia Global Crossing

This presentation described a proposal to develop a new set of IPv6 address policies. It was indicated that the proposal was intended to be broadly consistent with the general principles of the IPv4 policies.

Questions and discussion

(Discussion deferred until other presentations given).

There was a comment that this proposal appears to be a return to classful addressing by specifying the sizes of subsequent allocations and that it removes many of the checks and balances in current policies. It was argued that when addresses are not scarce there is less reason to impose a high administrative burden. However, it was also suggested that there are many other reasons to require that address space holders remain in contact with the RIRs and that any policies developed should aim to maintain that contact.

IPv6 allocation principles

Paul Wilson, APNIC

This presentation outlined the progress of the RIRs and their communities to revise the IPv6 policy document. It described the generally agreed basic principles of IPv6 address management. The presentation outlined a new set of proposed allocation principles that could be developed into a new policy document.

Questions and discussion

It was noted that this was the first public presentation of these principles and that they will be discussed and developed in more detail in various forums.

It was noted that the RIR staff who have been involved in developing this presentation are planning to report these developments to their communities. However, it is not yet possible for these staff to speak on behalf of their communities.

It was suggested that there should be a specific requirement for the address requestor to show an intention to actually deploy the address space within a certain time.

IPv6 trial in HiNet and policy issues

Fu-Kuei Chung, Chungwa Telecom

This presentation outlined the status of HiNet's trial to promote the deployment of IPv6 address space, in response to the increasing consumption of IPv4 address space in cable and ADSL networks.

Questions and discussion

No questions or discussions.

General discussion

It was suggested that a working group could be created to discuss and accelerate the development of IPv6 address allocation. However, it was decided that these issues should first be developed on the existing mailing lists ("sig-address-policy" and "sig-ipv6").

Meeting postponed: 18:00 to Thursday 30 August

Meeting continued 09:10 Thursday 30 August

An analysis of the IAB/IESG recommendation

Bill Manning, IETF

This presentation outlined the development of the IAB/IESG recommendation on IPv6 addressing. The presentation also gave an overview of the available registry tools. This presentation also suggested the possibility of reviewing the /48 assignment size recommendation.

Questions and discussion

It was noted that in the ARIN community there was a feeling that there had been very little input from the operational community and so further talks had been held to consider reviewing the policies based on operational experience.

It was noted that the discussions reported on in this current forum had placed an increased emphasis on conservation. It was suggested that this report casts doubt on ARIN's decision to adopt the IAB/IESG recommendations. It was noted that ARIN has committed to accepting the recommendation, but that they may review their position on that in the light of future operational experience.

IPv6 allocation principles (revised)

Paul Wilson, APNIC

This was a revised version of the presentation put forward previously. This revised version incorporated examples of utilisation rates based on the HD-ratio. The meeting was asked to consider what would be an appropriate HD-ratio threshold to accept as a required utilisation rate.

Questions and discussion

It was noted that even on a very low utilisation rate there is still a huge number of possible site addresses.

Proposal of new IPv6 Address policy (revised)

Takashi Arano, Asia Global Crossing

This was a revised version of the presentation put forward previously. This presentation contained a new recommendation for determining the initial allocation size, subsequent allocations, allocations from LIR to ISP, assignments, and registration requirements.

Questions and discussion

It was noted that the recommendation for allocation size is a trade off between minimum entry requirements and effects on the routing table. It was suggested that the recommendation raises operational issues in terms of how operators would manage their routing tables if the allocations outgrow routing technologies.

It was noted that the initial goal of making theIPv6 routing table smaller than the IPv4 routing table was the result of limited input from operators and did not necessarily reflect unanimity.

There was a comment from an operator with current experience in support of the recommended allocation size of /29.

It was argued that the factor which will determine the number of routes is not how much space is allocated, but rather the relative barriers to entry and the possibility of aggregating subsequent allocations.

It was noted that there is concern in the other regions that IPv6 address space should not be given away too quickly and that a /29 initial allocation is unlikely to be accepted globally.

It was noted that the capability of routers is growing, but it is not certain that this growth will be sufficient to cope with the potential number of routes possible under the proposed addressing schemes.

It was suggested that if current growth in the routing table is mostly due to multihoming and traffic management, then the IPv6 allocation size itself is not likely to have a significant effect on the routing table. However, it was noted that multihoming practices will need to be changed otherwise the potential number of multihomed /48 sites could pose significant problems.

It was noted that the size of the minimum allocation would determine what qualification criteria that would be required.

An example was given of how to balance qualification thresholds to minimum allocation. In this example, the qualification for a /36 would be 776 sites (HD-ratio of 0.8); however, to allow room for growth, an allocation of /32 could be made. It was noted that the details given in the example appeared to be quite realistic.

There was a general discussion about the types of verification that may be required to justify network needs. It was suggested that the benefit of abundance in IPv6 may be used to justify a lower administrative interaction with the registry. However, it was argued that for an equivalent effort requestors would receive vastly more IPv6 space than IPv4, which in turn could justify a level of administrative interaction with the RIR.

It was noted that the type of documentation that would be required to justify an allocation should be engineering in nature rather than marketing.

A question was raised in relation to existing sub-TLA holders. It was suggested that a /35 holder could return to a registry with documentation to request the balance of their reserved /29. However, it was noted that they would not be able to get aggregation beyond the /29 due to the allocation practices under the TLA/sub-TLA structure.

There was a strong objection to the proposed /32 initial allocation on the ground that the other RIRs communities were unlikely to accept it.

A show of hands was called. The Chair noted consensus in principle with the presentations given by Paul Wilson and Takashi Arano. It was recommend that there be further study of the HD-ratio, full documentation of these proposals, and use of the mailing lists for further discussion of these principles. It was also recommended that these proposals be presented to the other RIR communities.

Proposed extension of the bootstrap period for IPv6 allocations

Anne Lord, APNIC

This presentation reported that the current bootstrap limits have now been reached and sought consensus to extend the bootstrap period until 200 sub-TLAs have been allocated, subject to a maximum of 120 in any particular region.

Questions and discussion

There was a comment that the period should be extended until the new policy has been implemented.

It was noted that the regional qualification on the number of IPv6 holders is not sufficient because the distribution is not even across the region.

The chair asked for a show of hands on an amended proposal extending the bootstrapping period until the next IPv6 policy is implemented, on the understanding that the next policy takes account of bootstrapping needs. Consensus was achieved.

Proposal for provider independent IPv6 assignments for Internet exchanges

Anne Lord, APNIC

This presentation proposed a policy for provider independent IPv6 address space assignments for Internet exchanges. The current IPv6 policy document anticipates the need for such assignments but, to date, does not describe a policy under which they can be made.

Questions and discussion

It was clarified that the intention of applying this policy to Layer 2 exchanges is to allow for routers to communicate with each other.

There was a request that this proposed policy would need to reviewed in the light of operational experience in one-to-two years.

There was a suggestion to consider applying the minimum allocation to exchange points to ensure global routability. There were strong objections to this concept. It was noted that if IXPs required additional globally routable addresses, then they should receive that from their transit provider.

It was argued that a /64 assignment would be sufficient. It was argued that a /64 is sufficient for the peering mesh, and that all other needs should be met through normal processes.

The proposal was amended to specify a /64 assignment to exchange points.

A show of hands was called. The Chair noted consensus to implement this amended policy.

The presentation, "Large Space IPv4 Trial Usage Program for Future IPv6 Deployment", was rescheduled for the IPv6 Technical SIG.

Meeting closed: 11:00

Minuted by: Gerard Ross