[ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Re: IANA to RIR IPv6 Allocation
I've got one comment here on section 7. paragraph 4. "Subsequent Allocation": While the wording might be sufficiently clear for a native speaker by referring to "set of administrative procedures....", I am missing clear guidance for the IANA that there should _not_ be any incentive or responsibilty to consult with other groups, entities or third parties (irrespective of their, say, credibility for e.g. protocol development or technical specifications) which would require extending that 30 day period. My proposal would be that IANA would have to perform the subsequent allocation within this 30 day period, even if they might not be able to obtain advice or an expertise (for whatever reason) from any other party they might have decided to ask for advice. Wilfried ( https://cert.aco.net/ ) _________________________________:_____________________________________ Wilfried Woeber : e-mail: Woeber@CC.UniVie.ac.at UniVie Computer Center - ACOnet : Tel: +43 1 4277 - 140 33 Universitaetsstrasse 7 : Fax: +43 1 4277 - 9 140 A-1010 Vienna, Austria, Europe : RIPE-DB: WW144, PGP keyID 0xF0ACB369 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ...there's no place like 127.0.0.1 (or ::1/128 ?) From: David Kessens <david.kessens@nokia.com> To: Jeroen Massar <jeroen@unfix.org> Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 01:48:52 -0700 CC: ipv6-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] FW: [arin-council] IANA to RIR IPv6 Allocation Jeroen, On Fri, Aug 20, 2004 at 09:25:59AM +0200, Jeroen Massar wrote:
For people not on the arin-council (not likely ;) or the ppml@arin lists:
All policy discussions for the RIPE region are now conducted at the RIPE policy working group maillist: address-policy-wg@ripe.net David Kessens ---
-----Forwarded Message----- From: "Sweeting, John" <John.Sweeting@teleglobe.com> To: 'ppml@arin.net' <ppml@arin.net> Subject: [ppml] FW: [arin-council] IANA to RIR IPv6 Allocation Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 17:36:56 -0400
I am submitting the following proposal IAW ARIN's Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process. In the interest of all I would like to disclose up front that the information used to prepare this template was provided by ARIN staff.
############################################ Template: ARIN-POLICY-PROPOSAL-TEMPLATE-1.0
1. Policy Proposal Name: Allocation of IPv6 Address Space by the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Policy to Regional Internet Registries
2. Author
a. name: John Sweeting b. email: john.sweeting@teleglobe.com c. telephone: 703-766-3042 d. organization: ARIN Advisory Council
3. Proposal Version: 1
4. Submission Date: 8/17/04
5. Proposal type: new, global
6. Policy term: permanent
7. Policy statement:
1. Minimum Allocation Size.
The minimum size of any allocation of IPv6 address space from IANA to an RIR is prefix length /12. If this address space is not sufficient to meet the needs of an RIR for a projected 18 month period, IANA shall allocate to that RIR the address space for which it can provide justification.
2. Reservation of Unicast Address space.
2.1 IANA. By RFC 3513 the IANA has been allocated the range of IPv6 addresses beginning at binary value 001 (prefix length /3) for its allocations of unicast address space. In order to support regional aggregation of IPv6 address space IANA shall establish a reservation of a prefix length of /6 from this space for each established RIR and for each emerging RIR. Allocations to each RIR will be from the appropriate reservation.
2.2. RIRs. Each RIR may apply its own respective chosen allocation and reservation strategy in order to meet the needs of its community and to ensure the efficiency and efficacy of its work. Such reservations made by an RIR will be considered as being allocated by that RIR when that RIR applies for an allocation of address space from the IANA.
3. Initial Allocation.
3.1. Upon implementation of this policy IANA shall allocate to each established RIR a /12 from the reservation established for each particular RIR.
3.2. Upon recognition of an RIR by ICANN that RIR shall receive a /12 from the reservation set aside for that RIR.
4. Subsequent Allocation.
An RIR shall be eligible for an allocation of at least a minimal allocation from the IANA when its current holdings are less than 50% of its 18 month requirement or when it has less than 180 days of holdings available. The IANA shall evaluate the requested allocation using a set of administrative procedures that are mutually agreed to by the IANA and the NRO. This set of procedures shall be enacted within 30 days of the implentation of this policy.
5. Announcement of IANA allocations to the RIRs
When address space is allocated to a RIR, the IANA will send a detailed announcement to the receiving RIR. The IANA will also make announcements to all other RIRs, informing them of the recent allocation.
The IANA will make appropriate modifications to the "Internet Protocol V6 Address Space" page of the IANA website and may make announcements to only its own global announcement lists. The IANA announcements will be limited to which address ranges, the time of allocation and to which Registry they have been allocated.
8. Rationale:
The current IANA allocation policy for IPv6 is an interim policy that was promulgated in 1999. Operational experience has demonstrated the current minimum allocation size is too small; that the built in reservation system that must be followed by the RIRs does not allow for efficient and effective management of the resource by the RIR; and does not provide for an well known evaluation criteria. This document does not stipulate performance requirements in the provision of services by IANA to an RIR in accordance with the policy. Such requirements should be specified by appropriate agreements between the NRO and ICANN.
9. Timetable for implementation: Thirty days after ratification by the ICANN Board of Directors in accordance with the global policy development process
_______________________________________________
Wilfried, I've forwarded your comment to the ARIN ppml. Ray
-----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg- admin@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet Sent: Friday, August 20, 2004 7:50 AM To: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Cc: ipv6-wg@ripe.net; woeber@cc.univie.ac.at Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: IANA to RIR IPv6 Allocation
I've got one comment here on section 7. paragraph 4. "Subsequent Allocation":
While the wording might be sufficiently clear for a native speaker by referring to "set of administrative procedures....", I am missing clear guidance for the IANA that there should _not_ be any incentive or responsibilty to consult with other groups, entities or third parties (irrespective of their, say, credibility for e.g. protocol development or technical specifications) which would require extending that 30 day period.
My proposal would be that IANA would have to perform the subsequent allocation within this 30 day period, even if they might not be able to obtain advice or an expertise (for whatever reason) from any other party they might have decided to ask for advice.
Wilfried ( https://cert.aco.net/ ) _________________________________:_____________________________________ Wilfried Woeber : e-mail: Woeber@CC.UniVie.ac.at UniVie Computer Center - ACOnet : Tel: +43 1 4277 - 140 33 Universitaetsstrasse 7 : Fax: +43 1 4277 - 9 140 A-1010 Vienna, Austria, Europe : RIPE-DB: WW144, PGP keyID 0xF0ACB369 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ...there's no place like 127.0.0.1 (or ::1/128 ?)
From: David Kessens <david.kessens@nokia.com> To: Jeroen Massar <jeroen@unfix.org> Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 01:48:52 -0700 CC: ipv6-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] FW: [arin-council] IANA to RIR IPv6 Allocation
Jeroen,
On Fri, Aug 20, 2004 at 09:25:59AM +0200, Jeroen Massar wrote:
For people not on the arin-council (not likely ;) or the ppml@arin lists:
All policy discussions for the RIPE region are now conducted at the RIPE policy working group maillist:
address-policy-wg@ripe.net
David Kessens ---
-----Forwarded Message----- From: "Sweeting, John" <John.Sweeting@teleglobe.com> To: 'ppml@arin.net' <ppml@arin.net> Subject: [ppml] FW: [arin-council] IANA to RIR IPv6 Allocation Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 17:36:56 -0400
I am submitting the following proposal IAW ARIN's Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process. In the interest of all I would like to disclose up front that the information used to prepare this template was provided by ARIN staff.
############################################ Template: ARIN-POLICY-PROPOSAL-TEMPLATE-1.0
1. Policy Proposal Name: Allocation of IPv6 Address Space by the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Policy to Regional Internet Registries
2. Author
a. name: John Sweeting b. email: john.sweeting@teleglobe.com c. telephone: 703-766-3042 d. organization: ARIN Advisory Council
3. Proposal Version: 1
4. Submission Date: 8/17/04
5. Proposal type: new, global
6. Policy term: permanent
7. Policy statement:
1. Minimum Allocation Size.
The minimum size of any allocation of IPv6 address space from IANA to an RIR is prefix length /12. If this address space is not sufficient to meet the needs of an RIR for a projected 18 month period, IANA shall allocate to that RIR the address space for which it can provide justification.
2. Reservation of Unicast Address space.
2.1 IANA. By RFC 3513 the IANA has been allocated the range of IPv6 addresses beginning at binary value 001 (prefix length /3) for its allocations of unicast address space. In order to support regional aggregation of IPv6 address space IANA shall establish a reservation of a prefix length of /6 from this space for each established RIR and for each emerging RIR. Allocations to each RIR will be from the appropriate reservation.
2.2. RIRs. Each RIR may apply its own respective chosen allocation and reservation strategy in order to meet the needs of its community and to ensure the efficiency and efficacy of its work. Such reservations made by an RIR will be considered as being allocated by that RIR when that RIR applies for an allocation of address space from the IANA.
3. Initial Allocation.
3.1. Upon implementation of this policy IANA shall allocate to each established RIR a /12 from the reservation established for each particular RIR.
3.2. Upon recognition of an RIR by ICANN that RIR shall receive a /12 from the reservation set aside for that RIR.
4. Subsequent Allocation.
An RIR shall be eligible for an allocation of at least a minimal allocation from the IANA when its current holdings are less than 50% of its 18 month requirement or when it has less than 180 days of holdings available. The IANA shall evaluate the requested allocation using a set of administrative procedures that are mutually agreed to by the IANA and the NRO. This set of procedures shall be enacted within 30 days of the implentation of this policy.
5. Announcement of IANA allocations to the RIRs
When address space is allocated to a RIR, the IANA will send a detailed announcement to the receiving RIR. The IANA will also make announcements to all other RIRs, informing them of the recent allocation.
The IANA will make appropriate modifications to the "Internet Protocol V6 Address Space" page of the IANA website and may make announcements to only its own global announcement lists. The IANA announcements will be limited to which address ranges, the time of allocation and to which Registry they have been allocated.
8. Rationale:
The current IANA allocation policy for IPv6 is an interim policy that was promulgated in 1999. Operational experience has demonstrated the current minimum allocation size is too small; that the built in reservation system that must be followed by the RIRs does not allow for efficient and effective management of the resource by the RIR; and does not provide for an well known evaluation criteria. This document does not stipulate performance requirements in the provision of services by IANA to an RIR in accordance with the policy. Such requirements should be specified by appropriate agreements between the NRO and ICANN.
9. Timetable for implementation: Thirty days after ratification by the ICANN Board of Directors in accordance with the global policy development process
_______________________________________________
On 20-aug-04, at 14:01, Ray Plzak wrote:
Wilfried,
I've forwarded your comment to the ARIN ppml.
Ray, as long as you're forwarding, maybe you'll find my comment to the RIPE list from a week and a half ago of interest:
The Number Resource Organisation (NRO) has published a proposal for a policy for the allocation of IPv6 address space from the IANA to the RIRs. It is intended that this proposed policy should be agreed by all RIRs' open policy fora and then approved by the ASO and ICANN as a global policy.
Reserving a /6 for each RIR seems like the other extreme to me. In IPv4 we have around 220 /8s that have been given out to RIRs pretty much one at a time in the past. In IPv6 we effectively have 8 /6s. This means that as a percentage of total available space, the RIRs get more than 25 times more IPv6 space than they've been given IPv4 space in the past, even though a v4 /8 will accommodate at most 16.8M end-user assignments (less in practice) while a v6 /6 allows for AT LEAST 4.4T (yes, that's 10^12) end-user assignments. Now I can see SOME value in trying to have relatively large RIR blocks, but cutting up all non-reserved space so aggressively really doesn't have any upsides, and we never know whether we're going to need any really large blocks in the future. Also, doubling every time is ok for a while, but it pretty much guarantees that you're going to have way too much space on your hands at some point. A more reasonable policy would be: - reserve a /12 for each RIR now (a 4 bit boundary makes DNS delegations easier, I think a /8 is too much but that might work also) - then, for every delegation, give RIRs enough space to each to last a year comfortably - evaluate whether a new delegation is needed every 3 or 4 months, making the time of new delegations easy to predict
Iljitsch, While your comments do not address the policy proposed on the ARIN list there are some elements in your comments that may be relevant to the discussion on the ppml. I will soon forward it. In regard to your comments I have an observation with regard to the amount of IPv4 address space that has been allocated to the RIRs. It is worth noting that the RIRs have not been allocated "around 220" /8s. In fact, the vast majority of IPv4 address allocations pre-date the formation of the RIRs. These allocations were either made by the Central Registry (94 /8s) or the IETF (32 /8s*. This is the old classful D and E space. Some may choose to consider the old classful E space as an IANA reserve). The RIRs have had 50 /8 blocks allocated to them by the IANA. This is just under 20% of the total IPv4 address space. Ray
-----Original Message----- From: Iljitsch van Beijnum [mailto:iljitsch@muada.com] Sent: Friday, August 20, 2004 8:38 AM To: Ray Plzak Cc: <address-policy-wg@ripe.net>; <ipv6-wg@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] RE: [address-policy-wg] Re: IANA to RIR IPv6 Allocation
On 20-aug-04, at 14:01, Ray Plzak wrote:
Wilfried,
I've forwarded your comment to the ARIN ppml.
Ray, as long as you're forwarding, maybe you'll find my comment to the RIPE list from a week and a half ago of interest:
The Number Resource Organisation (NRO) has published a proposal for a policy for the allocation of IPv6 address space from the IANA to the RIRs. It is intended that this proposed policy should be agreed by all RIRs' open policy fora and then approved by the ASO and ICANN as a global policy.
Reserving a /6 for each RIR seems like the other extreme to me. In IPv4 we have around 220 /8s that have been given out to RIRs pretty much one at a time in the past. In IPv6 we effectively have 8 /6s. This means that as a percentage of total available space, the RIRs get more than 25 times more IPv6 space than they've been given IPv4 space in the past, even though a v4 /8 will accommodate at most 16.8M end-user assignments (less in practice) while a v6 /6 allows for AT LEAST 4.4T (yes, that's 10^12) end-user assignments.
Now I can see SOME value in trying to have relatively large RIR blocks, but cutting up all non-reserved space so aggressively really doesn't have any upsides, and we never know whether we're going to need any really large blocks in the future. Also, doubling every time is ok for a while, but it pretty much guarantees that you're going to have way too much space on your hands at some point.
A more reasonable policy would be:
- reserve a /12 for each RIR now (a 4 bit boundary makes DNS delegations easier, I think a /8 is too much but that might work also) - then, for every delegation, give RIRs enough space to each to last a year comfortably - evaluate whether a new delegation is needed every 3 or 4 months, making the time of new delegations easy to predict
On 20-aug-04, at 19:57, Ray Plzak wrote:
While your comments do not address the policy proposed on the ARIN list
Hm, I thought this was an IANA thing so it must be the same world wide?
In regard to your comments I have an observation with regard to the amount of IPv4 address space that has been allocated to the RIRs. It is worth noting that the RIRs have not been allocated "around 220" /8s.
Upon rereading it turns out the words didn't come out as I intended. What I meant to say was that there are some 220 /8s in total that may serve as global IPv4 unicast address space, and in the past the RIRs would get one /8 at a time, or about 0.45% of the available address space at a time. The proposed IPv6 policy wants to allocate /6s to the RIRs, which is 12.5% of the currently available global IPv6 unicast space. Now if 0.45% was workable for 10 years in IPv4, I don't see why 12.5% would be necessary in IPv6. Obviously there is some hidden goal that will be met by this policy. I think that before this policy is adopted this goal should be made explicit and there should be consensus that this is indeed an important goal.
Hi, On Fri, Aug 20, 2004 at 01:49:40PM +0200, Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet wrote:
My proposal would be that IANA would have to perform the subsequent allocation within this 30 day period, even if they might not be able to obtain advice or an expertise (for whatever reason) from any other party they might have decided to ask for advice.
Seconded. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 65398 (60210) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299
My proposal would be that IANA would have to perform the subsequent allocation within this 30 day period, even if they might not be able to obtain advice or an expertise (for whatever reason) from any other party they might have decided to ask for advice.
sure, if we can we do the same for rir to lir
participants (5)
-
Gert Doering -
Iljitsch van Beijnum -
Randy Bush -
Ray Plzak -
Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet