[address-policy-wg] IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "c)"

> > Below is an excerpt from the IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment
> > Policy:
> >
> >     5.1.1. Initial allocation criteria "c)"
> >
> >     "To qualify for an initial allocation of IPv6 address space, an
> >      organisation must [...] plan to provide IPv6 connectivity to
> >      organisations to which it will assign /48s by advertising that
> >      connectivity through its single aggregated address allocation"
> >
> >
> > LIRs who operate closed/private networks appear not to qualify because
> > the address space in these networks will not be advertised. Was this  
> > the
> > community's intention?

The intention was that any (globally routable) address space be
allocated in a way that aggregates well. We need to limit the size of
the DFZ routing tables. That means:

 - no random prefixes to end sites
 - end sites get addresses from LIRs, so the LIR can aggregate _all_ the
   routes to the end sites it covers via a single prefix

At the time the policy was developed, we explicitely did not include
discussion of "closed/private" networks. So basically, that topic
isn't really covered in the current policy.

Speaking personally, I don't see a problem with making allocations
for closed networks, _if_ there is the possibility/intention that at
some _future_ time the address will be publically advertised. I.e.,
for the short term the address space will be closed, but the long-term
intention is otherwise. But see below as well.

> More or less yes. If they do not plan to advertise this space, they
> should go for the
> "unique-site-local-replacement-addresses-that-you-are-not-allowed-to-
> route-globally-ever" (or whatever they will be called).

For sites that will never be publically routed, this is a reasonable
way to go. (draft-ietf-ipv6-unique-local-addr-05.txt is the current
version.)

Note that the "site local replacement" addresses are essentially owned
by the end site, so there is no need to ever return those
addresses. For addresses allocated from an LIR, the address space is
effectively bound to the LIR, and is not "portable". Thus, if at some
later date the end site wants global visibility, the visibility will
be through the LIR, not some other ISP. End sites need to understand
the implications of both approaches prior to selecting a type of
address appropriate for them.

Thomas