[address-policy-wg] New version of 2006-1 IPv6 PI Policy Proposal

Hi all,

According to the discussion in the list and the inputs received in the
afternoon presentation, here is the draft text which is being also
officially submitted to the WG chairs.

As usual, inputs are welcome !

Regards,
Jordi



RIPE Policy Proposal 2006-01 - v4.0


Summary of Proposal:
 
This policy is intended to provide a solution for organisations that need
IPv6 Provider Independent (PI) assignments.
 
Typically, such organisations will require the PI assignment to become
Multihomed as happens for IPv4, but there may be other reason behind
requests. This policy proposal is only trying to cover this type of PI
assignments (for example data centers which are not an ISP, or content
providers).

 
Draft Policy Text: 
 
Qualification for an IPv6 Provider Independent (PI) Assignment:
To qualify for a direct assignment, the End User must have a contract with a
sponsoring LIR or a direct contract with the RIPE NCC, as detailed in the
policy proposal 2007-01. The PI assignment can¹t be further assigned to
other organisations.

PI IPv6 Assignment Size to End User Organisations:
The minimum size of the assignment is /48. However, a larger assignment
(shorter prefix) can be provided if duly documented and justified.

Subsequent Assignment Size to End User Organisations:
Whenever possible, further assignments will be made from adjacent address
blocks, but only if duly documented and justified.

Assignment 'Super Block':
Assignments will be allocated from a separate 'super block' to facilitate
filtering practices.


 
Rationale:
a. Arguments Supporting the Proposal

In IPv4, there are organisations that qualify for a PI allocation, or that
could opt to become an LIR. This may be because they need either to be
Multihomed or have other administrative or technical reasons for needing a
portable addressing block.

This is currently not the case for IPv6, and is perceived as a clear barrier
for deployment of IPv6 in some organisations. This policy proposal addresses
that barrier by means of providing a direct assignment from the RIPE NCC.

Any organisation receiving such an assignment would not be allowed to make
further assignments to other external organisations, but instead only to
assign subnets internally within their own facilities.

The RIPE NCC can¹t force routing decision on people, but the RIPE NCC can
help people making educated choices about their routing filters by assigning
IPv6 PI /48s from a well-documented Œsuper block¹. Experience from other
regions shows that routing of /48s that are clearly marked as Œdirect
assignments¹ works well.

By setting up this policy, we would avoid creating an unfair situation among
different regions, and meet the needs of any organisation that required PI
address space. All organisations that opt for this PI, will be in an equal
position once the community agrees a long-term technical solution and will
have to either move to this new solution or become an LIR, if they qualify.
Newcomers will also be in the same position. Some organisations will not opt
for PI under this policy because they do not need it. This would avoid
placing them in an unfair situation.

 
b. Arguments Opposing the Proposal

The possible effect of this proposal is a growth of global routing tables to
levels that, together with the existing and forecast IPv4 routing entries,
could create significant issues for operators unless vendors can provide
products that address such issues. Even if such technical solutions were
found, the proposal could still have a major impact on the cost and/or
depreciation period for infrastructure investments.


It is expected that organisations requesting an IPv6 PI prefix under this
policy, which may need in the future a standard PA block, will apply for
that according to existing policies and will need to renumber.


 





**********************************************
The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org

Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 !
http://www.ipv6day.org

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.