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

Hi,

On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 06:57:42AM +0200, Hans Petter Holen wrote:
> 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

I'm all for removing the 200-customer rule, as it's pointless, and
about everyone agrees upon that (we had multiple lengthy discussions
on this topic in the past, and the only argument in favour of it that
I can remember was "we want the RIPE policy to be in line with the other
regions", which is no longer true anyway).

>   remove the reference to "/48s" as the assignment size.

This is a useful thing, even if people don't agree with it on the 
first glance (but those just need more coffee) :-)

I've read other comments that say "please do not remove it, because ISPs 
will then start to assign /52, /62, and whatnots".  I think this argument
doesn't really hold, because *this* is *NOT* the place that specifies
the rules for LIR->customer assignments (!!).

The "how to assign to customers" -- /48, /64 or /128, depending on
circumstances -- rule *is specified* in section 5.4.1 of the same 
document (ripe-267) in very explicit form.

So I'd go for a forward reference.  Text proposal is below.


The reason why this "/48 assignment" stuff from the criteria needs to
removed is that it doesn't make sense.  The policy explicitely specifies
that it's *fine* to assign /64s to certain categories of end users
(5.4.1), but 5.1.1 says "but if you do that, you will not get address
space to do it".  Who is bitten by this is the 3GPP people, because
they are planning only /64s - and if we have a policy that says "the
only real driver for IPv6 isn't going to get addresses", that policy
is dumb.


> 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.

I'd opt for:

    c) plan to provide IPv6 connectivity to organisations and
    customers to which it will make assignments _according to the 
    rules specified in section 5.4.1_, and will advertise that 
    connectivity through its single aggregated address allocation.

just to make it clear that this change doesn't mean "/60s are fine now".

> 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. 

I agree.

> 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. 

I disagree on the wording.  The assignment size is specified in 5.4.1, 
and ISPs should explictely NOT have "different plans".  This is one of
the very important fundaments of the policy: end customer changes ISP,
and does *not* have to start haggling about address space size (and
especially doesn't have to reorganize his internal subnetting due to
different sized assignments being handed out).

As we are not changing 5.4.1, this statement is somewhat confused anyway
- for an ISP to be permitted to have "different plans", we'd need to 
change 5.4.1...

> Such a change in the policy will also make 
>    IPv6 allocations more accessible and could result in the acceleration 
>    of IPv6 development. 

Agreed.

>    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.

The routing system can bear that.  (Yes, I hear you shouting, but I can
count).  Go for it!

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
-- 
Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations:  71007  (66629)

SpaceNet AG                    Mail: netmaster at Space.Net
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14      Tel : +49-89-32356-0
D- 80807 Muenchen              Fax : +49-89-32356-234