Agendas for IPv6/lir/eix joint sessions RIPE40
Hi, Below follow the official agendas for the joint sessions regarding ipv6 allocation policies. We have asked to schedule two seperate sessions, one for discussions regarding the new interim policy for exchange points, and one for discussions regarding the revision of the general allocation guidelines. We would like to limit any discussion to the lir-wg maillist to minimize the amount of duplicate mails. Please let me (and Fearghas&Hans Petter) know if you have any last minute additions that you want to have discussed and we will try to accomodate your request. Please note that the current meeting plan on the website has one extra slot allocated to the lir/ipv6 joint session that will be used by the lir wg and not by the lir/ipv6 joint session. Thanks, David K. --- Agenda for the IPv6/lir joint session RIPE40, Prague Wednesday October 3rd, 2001, 16:00 - 17:30 Topic: Revision of the general ipv6 allocation guidelines Materials to read: - ripe-196: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ipv6policy.html - http://www.djp.net/ipv6/proposal.html - http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/archive/ripe-39/presentations/RIPE39-IPv6-... A. Administrative stuff - appointment of scribe - agenda bashing B. How to proceed for the next iteration of the policy. C. Proposal for the next version of the policy http://www.djp.net/ipv6/proposal.html (Dave Pratt) D. New IPv6 Address Policy Proposal Gerard Ross (APNIC) Takashi Arano (JPNIC/Asia Global Crossing) E. Discussion Z. AOB ------------------------- Agenda for the IPv6/lir/eix joint session RIPE40, Prague Thursday October 4th, 2001, 11:00 - 12:30 Topic: Interim policy for allocation of ipv6 addresses for Internet Exchange Points A. Administrative stuff - appointment of scribe - agenda bashing B. How to proceed for the next iteration of the policy. C. Selection of most important issues that we want to discuss during this session: - how to proceed from the interim policy ?!? - default /64 or /48 allocation size - do we want to have this space allocated from a special block, may be even block that is used by all RIRs for this purpose - what documentation is needed to get an allocation - is there any need to document allocations in the RIPE database, and if so, how ?!? - general wording of the policy D. Discussion of the issues Z. AOB ---
Hi,
D. New IPv6 Address Policy Proposal Gerard Ross (APNIC) Takashi Arano (JPNIC/Asia Global Crossing)
Here is another IPv6 address policy proposal which reached consensus in AP regions. I am sorry for late submission. Regards, Takashi Arano ---------------------------------- New Draft Proposal of IPv6 Address Policy - Consensus reached in the APNIC Open Policy meeting in Taipei 27/9/2001 Gerard Ross(APNIC) Takashi Arano(JPNIC/Asia Global Crossing) 1. Background of this proposal This document is a draft proposal for IPv6 Address allocation/assignment policy, based on the discussion results in the last APNIC Open Policy Meeting in August 2001 at Taipei. At that meeting, two proposals for IPv6 address policy were presented. One is RIRs (APNIC)'s proposal by compiling RIPE/ARIN mailing list discussion and the other is a proposal based on the consensus among Japanese IP community such as JANOG, WIDE, etc. presented by JPNIC. After some discussion there, two proposals were merged and the merged version got some consensus among meeting participants. 2. Basic principles Any IPv6 policy should follow the basic idea of traditional IPv4 address policy such as slow start, concept of address lease, etc. The policy has 5 goals which are mutually conflicted and should be well balanced; Uniqueness Registration Aggregation Conservation and Fairness. Main difference in IPv6 is - Lower priority on conservation and - Higher priority on aggregation 3. Initial Allocation Criteria justification of /36 At HD-Ratio 0.8 (18.9% of /36), this is 776 sites. 4. Initial Allocation Size Shorter prefix of either evaluation of existing IPv4 infrastructure or the fixed size /32 (i.e. /32 is the minimum allocation size) This means an applicant who has large IPv4 infrastructure can be allocated more than /32 with some justifications. This can avoid unnecessary address fragmentation. Note that the number /32 was supported by almost all meeting participants according to the show of hands. 5. Subsequent Allocation Criteria Subsequent allocation requested when HD-Ratio utilization level is reached. The value of HD-Ratio should be between 0.8 and 0.85. But in the meeting, we have no clear consensus on this number and need to investigate more. 6. Nth Subsequent Allocation Size Shorter prefix of either previous (n-1)th allocation size minus 1 or evaluation of two year requirements submitted. This means organizations satisfying the HD-Ratio criteria can obtain at least one bit shorter prefix. If they need more, they can demonstrate their requirements. In this case, RIRs evaluate their requirements and allocate prefixes enough to satisfy two year requirements. 7. Allocation: LIR to ISP LIR can decide the allocation criteria and size for their customer ISP, but they must report sum of all /48s to RIR when they come back to RIR for subsequent allocation in evaluation of normal HD-ratio. 8. Assignment to end user LIR assigns /48(in most cases), /64 or /128 to end users, depending on situations. However, RIR/NIR must not concern what size LIR assigns to them because it is within IETF's boundary. If end users use up /48 and need more, they can request an additional /48 with justification. This request will be processed in the RIR/NIR level. 9. Definition of 'site' The HD-Ratio is measured by the number of 'sites' with /48 address. A 'site' is identified as ISP-connection basis, i.e. every end user can get a /48 when they get an IPv6 connection from ISP, regardless of organization, location, etc. 10. Assignment to infrastructure ISPs can assign up to /48 per their PoP(regarded as just one assignment). 11. DB registration Every site (/48 address prefix) should be registered. Privacy concern should be covered. ------------------------------------------
On Thu, 27 Sep 2001, Takashi Arano wrote:
Shorter prefix of either evaluation of existing IPv4 infrastructure or the fixed size /32 (i.e. /32 is the minimum allocation size)
This means an applicant who has large IPv4 infrastructure can be allocated more than /32 with some justifications. This can avoid unnecessary address fragmentation.
Note that the number /32 was supported by almost all meeting participants according to the show of hands.
One of the biggest problems with new policies is that end users should get /48 too. There are a _lot_ of IPv4 end users out there. An operator shows up saying, "we have IPv4 650,000 end users, now give us a /24", or "We have 6,500,000 IPv4 end users, now give us /20" (these are according to HD-ratio 0.8). Where to get these these address blocks? -- Pekka Savola "Tell me of difficulties surmounted, Netcore Oy not those you stumble over and fall" Systems. Networks. Security. -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords
Hi, On Thu, Sep 27, 2001 at 03:45:32PM +0300, Pekka Savola wrote:
An operator shows up saying, "we have IPv4 650,000 end users, now give us a /24", or "We have 6,500,000 IPv4 end users, now give us /20" (these are according to HD-ratio 0.8).
Where to get these these address blocks?
There are 2^20 /20's out there - that's 1048576, 10 times as much as we have routes in the IPv4 table right now. So I'd say "giving everybody that can prove to have 6 million IPv4 users a /20 is the right thing to do and NOT wasteful". There are certainly less than 2^20 entities each serving 6 million IPv4 users... Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299
On Thu, 27 Sep 2001, Gert Doering wrote:
On Thu, Sep 27, 2001 at 03:45:32PM +0300, Pekka Savola wrote:
An operator shows up saying, "we have IPv4 650,000 end users, now give us a /24", or "We have 6,500,000 IPv4 end users, now give us /20" (these are according to HD-ratio 0.8).
Where to get these these address blocks?
There are 2^20 /20's out there - that's 1048576, 10 times as much as we have routes in the IPv4 table right now. So I'd say "giving everybody that can prove to have 6 million IPv4 users a /20 is the right thing to do and NOT wasteful". There are certainly less than 2^20 entities each serving 6 million IPv4 users...
Sure, but this requires significant additional assignments from IANA; 2001::/16 will not be nearly enough. For example, 21xx::/8 might be enough for a while. -- Pekka Savola "Tell me of difficulties surmounted, Netcore Oy not those you stumble over and fall" Systems. Networks. Security. -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords
Hi, On Thu, Sep 27, 2001 at 09:01:49PM +0300, Pekka Savola wrote:
Sure, but this requires significant additional assignments from IANA; 2001::/16 will not be nearly enough. For example, 21xx::/8 might be enough for a while.
Yes. And IANA is part of the picture, concerning IPv6 assignment / allocation policies. So that should not hinder us doing the right thing (if we decide this is it). Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299
participants (4)
-
David Kessens -
Gert Doering -
Pekka Savola -
Takashi Arano