Removing IPv6 Requirement for Receiving Space from the Final /8
This policy proposal has been accepted
The new RIPE Document is: ripe-632
You're looking at an older version: 1
The current (published) version is 3- State:
- Accepted
- Publication date
- Draft document
- Draft
- Authors
- Proposal Version
- 3.0 - 23 Oct 2014
- All Versions
-
- Accepted
- 04 Mar 2015
- Working Group
- Address Policy Working Group
- Proposal type
-
- Modify
- Policy term
- Indefinite
- New RIPE Document
Summary of Proposal
In order to receive an allocation from the final /8, LIRs are currently required to have received an IPv6 allocation. LIRs that have an existing IPv6 PI assignment but no PA allocation do not meet this criterion. In order to qualify, they need to request an IPv6 allocation and subsequently return their existing PI assignment (per ripe-589 section 7.1).
This proposal aims to relax this requirement.
Policy Text
[The following text will update sections 5.1 in the RIPE Policy Document “IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region”, if the proposal reaches consensus.]
a. Current policy text
5.1 Allocations made by the RIPE NCC to LIRs
[...]
Allocations will only be made to LIRs if they have already received an IPv6 allocation from an upstream LIR or the RIPE NCC.
b. New policy text
5.1 Allocations made by the RIPE NCC to LIRs
[...]
Allocations will only be made to LIRs if they have already received an IPv6 allocation or IPv6 Provider Independent (PI) assignment from an upstream LIR or the RIPE NCC.
Rationale
a. Arguments supporting the proposal
The aim of the original criterion is to facilitate IPv6 deployment. In this respect an LIR that has received an IPv6 assignment should not be treated differently from an LIR that has received an IPv6 allocation. The further requirement that a prior IPv6 PI assignment should be returned upon receiving an IPv6 allocation is downright deleterious to IPv6 adoption. In many cases the prior PI assignment will already have authoritative DNS servers registered in numerous TLD registries, which makes renumbering a non-trivial exercise.
b. Arguments opposing the proposal
Relaxing the requirements for receiving IPv4 space may lead to a slightly faster run-out rate of IPv4. The authors do not expect this change to have a significant impact, because LIRs are still only entitled to a single /22 from the remaining address pool. The challenge of acquiring an IPv6 allocation from another LIR or the RIPE NCC is equal to the challenge of acquiring an IPv6 assignment from another LIR or the RIPE NCC.