[address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #gamma IPv6 Initial Allocation Criteria

[Hans Petter Holen <]

Dear all,
Please find enclosed a policy proposal from Andy Furnell.
My proposal is to enter this proposal into the Discussion Phase with a time line of 4 weeks  ending on May 9the allowing the discusssion to continue over the RIPE meeting.


1. Number #gamma
2. Policy Proposal Name: IPv6 Initial Allocation Criteria
3. Author
  a. name: Andy Furnell
  b. e-mail: andy@localhost
  c. telephone: +44 (0) 20 7645 3519
  d. organisation: London Internet Exchange (LINX)
4. Proposal Version: 1
5. Submission Date: 4/4-2005
6. Suggested WG for discussion and publication: Address Policy WG 
7. Proposal type: modify
  a. new, modify, or delete
8. Policy term: renewable
  a. temporary, permanent, or renewable.
9. Summary of proposal:
  The proposal is to change the IPv6 Initial Allocation criteria
  outlined in the "IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy" 
  (http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ipv6policy.html). The proposed
  change is to remove "have a plan for making at least 200 /48 
  assignments to other organisations within two years" and to
  remove the reference to "/48s" as the assignment size.

10. Policy text
   a. Current (if modify):

   5.1.1. Initial allocation criteria

   To qualify for an initial allocation of IPv6 address space, an
   organisation must:

   a) be an LIR;

   b) not be an End Site;

   c) plan to provide IPv6 connectivity to organisations to which
      it will assign /48s by advertising that connectivity through its
      single aggregated address allocation; and

   d) have a plan for making at least 200 /48 assignments to other
      organisations within two years.

   b. New:

   5.1.1. Initial allocation criteria

   To qualify for an initial allocation of IPv6 address space, an
   organisation must:
   
   a) be an LIR;

   b) not be an End Site;

   c) plan to provide IPv6 connectivity to organisations and
   customers to which it will make assignments by advertising that 
   connectivity through its single aggregated address allocation.


11. Rationale:
   a. Arguments supporting the proposal
   Many LIRs' networks do not have 200 customers to make assignments 
   to but still maintain autonomous network and addressing policies. 
   These require address space that is both aggregatable and independent
   from that of their peers. In addition, a /48 assignment is not 
   always appropriate; ISPs might have different plans for the size 
   of the assignments they will make and the policy should not stand 
   as an obstacle for them. Such a change in the policy will also make 
   IPv6 allocations more accessible and could result in the acceleration 
   of IPv6 development. 
   b. Arguments opposing the proposal 
   With such a change in the policy, every LIR operating an autonomous
   network would be able to receive an IPv6 allocation. The worst 
   case scenario would be a number of allocations equal to the number of 
   LIRs in the RIPE region.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------