-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ipv6-wg@ripe.net [mailto:owner-ipv6-wg@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Stuart Prevost
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2002 4:08 AM
To: lir-wg@ripe.net; ipv6-wg@ripe.net
Subject: Fw: [GLOBAL-V6] New draft available: IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Global PolicyAll,I have send this to this lists as the global-v6 lists does not seem to be working.Regards,Stuart----- Original Message -----From: Stuart PrevostTo: stu@prevost.netSent: Friday, January 11, 2002 7:32 PMSubject: Re: [GLOBAL-V6] New draft available: IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Global PolicyDear all,Please find enclosed comments on new draft enclosed in text below.I an unable to attend the RIPE meeting next week in Amsterdam, but Paul Mylotte will comment on the comments in this mail at the meeting.Regards,StuartIPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Global Policy
Draft of December, 22 2001
Version 2001-12-22
APNIC
ARIN
RIPE - NCC
Status of this Memo
This document specifies "Internet best current practices" for the
Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
improvements. Distribution of this document is unlimited as long as
its contents remain unchanged.Comments on this document should be sent to the global-v6 mailing
list:To post: <global-v6@lists.apnic.net>.
To subscribe: <http://www.apnic.net/net_comm/lists/>
Archives: <http://www.apnic.net/mailing-lists/global-v6>Contents
Status of this Memo.......................................... 1
1. Introduction............................................. 2
1.1. Overview............................................ 2
1.2. Current Status...................................... 32. Definitions.............................................. 4
2.1. Autonomous System (AS).............................. 5
2.2. Internet Registry (IR).............................. 5
2.3. Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA).......... 5
2.4. Regional Internet Registry (RIR).................... 6
2.5. National Internet Registry (NIR).................... 6
2.6. Local Internet Registry (LIR)....................... 6
2.7. Allocate............................................ 6
2.8. Assign.............................................. 6
2.9. Utilization......................................... 7
2.10. Site............................................... 73. Goals of IPv6 address space management................... 7
3.1. Goals............................................... 7
3.2. Uniqueness.......................................... 8
3.3. Registration........................................ 8
3.4. Aggregation......................................... 8
3.5. Conservation (Stewardship).......................... 9
3.6. Fairness............................................ 9
3.7. Minimize Overhead................................... 9
3.8. Conflict of goals................................... 94. IPv6 Policy Principles................................... 10
4.1. Address space not to be considered property......... 10
4.2. Routability not guaranteed.......................... 11
4.3. Minimum Allocation.................................. 11
4.4. Consideration of IPv4 Infrastructure................ 125. Policies for allocations and assignments................. 12
5.1. Consistency of IR address space management policies. 12
5.2. Initial allocation.................................. 12
5.2.1. Initial allocation criteria.................... 12
5.2.2. Initial allocation size........................ 13
5.3. Subsequent allocation............................... 13
5.3.1. Subsequent allocation criteria................. 13
5.3.2. Utilization Metric............................. 13
5.3.3. Applied HD-Ratio............................... 14
5.3.4. Subsequent Allocation Size..................... 14
5.4. LIR-to-ISP allocation............................... 14
5.5. Assignment.......................................... 15
5.5.1. Assignment address space size.................. 15
5.5.2. Assignment to a site........................... 15
5.5.3. Assignment of multiple /48s to a single site... 15
5.5.4. Assignment to operator's infrastructure........ 15
5.6. DB registration..................................... 16
5.7. Reverse lookup...................................... 16
5.8. Validity of allocations and assignments............. 16
5.9. Existing IPv6 address space holders................. 176. Special case............................................. 17
6.1. IX (Internet Exchange).............................. 177. Acknowledgment........................................... 17
8. References............................................... 18
9. Appendix A:.............................................. 19
1. Introduction
1.1. Overview
This document describes policies for the allocation and assignment of
globally unique Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) address space. In
particular, [RFC2373, RFC2373bis] designates 2000::/3 to be global
unicast address space that IANA may allocate. In accordance with
[RFC2928, RFC2373bis, IAB-Request], IANA has assigned initial ranges
of global unicast IPv6 address space from the 2001::/16 address block
to the existing RIRs. This document concerns the initial and
subsequent allocations of the 2000::/3 unicast address space, for
which RIRs formulate allocation policies. Because end sites will
generally be given /48 allocations [RFC 3177, RIRs-on-48s], the
particular emphasis of this document is on policies relating the bits
within 2000::/3 to the left of the /48 boundary. However, since some
end sites will receive /64 and /128 allocations, all bits to the left
of /64 are in scope.This document updates and replaces all the guidelines and procedures
of the existing Provisional IPv6 Policies [RIRv6-Policies] based on
over two years of experience with the 1999 policy. The Provisional
IPv6 Policy document will be obsoleted with the adoption of this
document.Address policies should be globally uniform and formulated in a
bottom-up manner through consensus processes at regional and global
levels. Address policies must be determined with well-balanced
consideration given to not only technical constraints and the
expectations of the Internet community, but also to the operational
needs of ISPs and end users. Furthermore, the policies should be
reviewed whenever necessary in accordance with changes in the
external environment or operational experience of the relevant
communities.Policies described in this document are global in nature and are
intended to be followed in each registry. However, adoption of this
document does not preclude local variations in each region or area.This policy is also considered an interim policy in the sense that
there is still little experience with allocating IPv6 addresses. As
experience from implementing the policy is gained, some aspects of
the policy will likely need review and updating.
1.2. Current Status
The APNIC meeting held in Taiwan in August 2001 discussed policies
relating to IPv6 address allocation and assignment and reached a
certain consensus. Afterward, similar suggestions were made at a
RIPE meeting held in October 2001 and an ARIN meeting held in the
same month. Various discussions were held at these meetings, with
consensus identified on a number of points. This document makes a
proposal based upon the results of discussions at these meetings.In all of these meetings, the participants recognized an urgent need
for more detailed, complete policies in the Asia Pacific Region
governing global IPv6 address space management. It was generally
recognized that discussion about policies for IPv6 allocation and
assignment will not easily come to an end, but there is a consensus
that such discussion should be summed up quickly to establish interim
policies. Accordingly, this document should be considered as a time-
limited public document that describes the most reasonable solution
available at present that has been obtained through these
discussions. This document will therefore be duly updated as the
Internet environment of IPv6 progresses, and it is expected that
updates will occur relatively frequently in the coming years.This document does not provide details of discussions concerning
individual policy issues, however the following sources provide
background information which may be of interest:Meeting results: <http://www.apnic.net/meetings/12/results/>
<http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/archive/ripe-40/minutes.html>
<http://www.arin.net/minutes/ARIN_VIII/PPM.html>Presentation Materials:
<http://www.apnic.net/meetings/12/docs/prop_new_ipv6_policy.ppt>
<http://www.apnic.net/meetings/12/docs/ipv6principles-dist.ppt>
<http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/archive/ripe-40/presentations/>
<http://www.arin.net/minutes/ARIN_VIII/PPM.html>
2. Definitions
[note: some of these definitions will be replaced by definitions from
other RIR documents in order to be more consistent.]The following terms and their definitions are of particular
importance to the understanding of the goals, environment, and
policies described in this document.Responsibility for management of IPv6 address spaces is distributed
globally in accordance with the hierarchical structure shown below.
+--------+
| IANA |
+--------+
|
+-----------+-----------+
| | |
+--------+ +--------+ +--------+
| RIR | | RIR | | RIR | Regional Internet
+--------+ +--------+ +--------+ Registries
|
+-----------+--+--------+
| | |
| +-----+ +-----+
| | NIR | | NIR | National Internet
| +-----+ +-----+ Registries
| | |
+--------+ +--------+ +--------+
|LIR/ISP | |LIR/ISP | |LIR/ISP | Local Internet
+--------+ +--------+ +--------+ Registries
| | |
+---------+ | |
| | | |
+-------+ +----+ +----+ +----+
|EU(ISP)| | EU | | EU | | EU | End users
+-------+ +----+ +----+ +----+
2.1. Autonomous System (AS)
Autonomous Systems are the unit of routing policy in the world of
exterior routing, and are specifically applicable to protocols like
BGP [RFC1771].
2.2. Internet Registry (IR)
An Internet Registry (IR) is an organization that is responsible for
distributing IP address space to its members or customers and for
registering those distributions. IRs are classified according to
their primary function and territorial scope within the hierarchical
structure depicted in the figure above.
2.3. Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA)
The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) has responsibility for
management of the entire IP address space used on the Internet.
Actual assignment operations are performed by organizations under
IANA. Rather than allocating or assigning address space to
operational networks, the IANA delegates responsibility for large
blocks of address space to Regional Internet Registries, for
management at the regional level.
2.4. Regional Internet Registry (RIR)
Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) are established and authorized by
respective regional communities, and recognized by the IANA to serve
and represent large geographical regions. The primary role of RIRs
is to manage and distribute public Internet address space within
their respective regions. Currently, there are three RIRs: APNIC,
RIPE NCC, and ARIN. Preparations are being made to establish LACNIC
and AfriNIC.
2.5. National Internet Registry (NIR)
A National Internet Registry (NIR) is an IR that primarily allocates
address space to its members, which are Local Internet Registries
(LIRs). NIR members are generally Internet Service Providers (ISPs)
organized at a national level. A NIR is constituted from ISPs, but
the NIR itself does not function as an ISP. NIRs are expected to
remain neutral to the interests of ISPs of their constituency. NIRs
exist mostly in the Asia Pacific Region.
2.6. Local Internet Registry (LIR)
A Local Internet Registry (LIR) is an IR that primarily assigns
address space to the users of the network services that it provides.
LIRs are generally ISPs, whose customers are primarily end users and
possibly other ISPs.
2.7. Allocate
To allocate means to distribute address space to IRs for the purpose
of subsequent distribution by them.
2.8. Assign
To assign means to designate address space that an IR distributes
part or all of to an end user for the purpose of actual deployment in
that end user's or ISP's own network. Address space is also
designated as assigned if the IR uses it for the purpose of
addressing their own network. Assignments are made only for specific
purposes demonstrated by specific organizations and are not be sub-
allocated or sub-assigned to other parties.In this hierarchical structure, IANA allocates address space to RIRs
for the purpose of redistribution. RIRs then allocate address space
to NIRs or LIRs in their respective regions (or in some cases to NIRs
which further allocate the space to LIRs within their own countries).
Each NIR allocates address space to LIRs in its own country. When an
RIR or NIR allocates address space to an LIR, it also delegates to
the LIR the authority to assign addresses to end users.
2.9. Utilization
Unlike IPv4, IPv6 generally assigns a /48 to each end site. The
actual utilization of any particular /48, when compared to IPv4 ,
will be extremely low. In IPv6, the "utlization" that is of interest
refers to the bits to the left of the /48.Throughout this document, the term utilization refers to the
allocation of /48s to end sites, and not the utilization of those
/48s within those end sites.
2.10. Site
A site is defined as an end user (subscriber) who has a business
relationship with a provider that involves that provider carrying its
traffic. Every end user (subscriber) individually on a contract with
an ISP is considered an entity and is eligible to receive a /48 IPv6
assignment, regardless of organization or geographical location.
3. Goals of IPv6 address space management
3.1. Goals
The goals of address space management described here reflect the
mutual interest of all members of the Internet community and ensure
that the Internet is able to function and grow to the maximum extent
possible.Address policies must be determined with well-balanced consideration
given to not only technical constraints and the expectations of the
Internet community but also to the operational needs of ISPs and end
users.These goals are essentially the same as the goals in IPv4 policies
that have been formulated by the Internet community. However,
attention must be paid to the fact that differences between IPv6 and
IPv4 change the relative priority of elements that must be considered
to attain these goals.
3.2. Uniqueness
Every assignment and/or allocation of address space must guarantee
uniqueness worldwide. This is an absolute requirement for ensuring
that every public host on the Internet can be uniquely identified.
3.3. Registration
Every assignment and allocation of Internet address space must be
registered in a public registry database accessible to all members of
the Internet community.Which database is this referring to ? Each RIR database?
This is necessary to ensure the uniqueness of each Internet address
and to provide reference information for Internet troubleshooting at
all levels, ranging from all RIRs and IRs to end users.Are we talking /48s /64s and /128s?
It also reflects the expectation of the Internet community that all
users of public resources, such as address space, should be able to
check the conditions of the resources.What does "conditions of the resource" mean?
3.4. Aggregation
Wherever possible, address space should be distributed in a
hierarchical manner, according to the topology of network
infrastructure.This is necessary to permit the aggregation of routing information
and limit the expansion of Internet routing tables. With its vast
address space, IPv6 makes hierarchical distribution for aggregation
much easier than IPv4.The IPv6 specification creates a huge address space, and the number
of hosts under internal routing control of an individual autonomous
system is expected to increase dramatically compared with IPv4. For
example, cellular phones, various electric appliances, and telemeter
sensors, are likely to become connected to the Internet in addition
to the conventional types of IPv4 hosts. Thus, hierarchical
distributions must be considered to limit the expansion of routing
tables regarding not only external routing information advertised in
the Internet default-free zone but also internal routing information
within an autonomous system. Because internal aggregation is
important, policies should be sensitive to supporting better internal
aggregation (e.g, through assignment of bigger blocks).
3.5. Conservation (Stewardship)
Maintaining unnecessary allocations and assignments or stockpiling
address space with no aggregation merit should be avoided as a matter
of course. Also, efforts must be made for the efficiency of address
use as much as possible within the bounds of other constraints.
3.6. Fairness
All policies and practices relating to the use of public address
space should apply fairly and equitably to all existing and potential
members of the Internet community, regardless of their location,
nationality, size or any other factor.
3.7. Minimize Overhead
It is desirable to minimize the overhead associated with obtaining
additional address space as a site grows. Overhead includes the need
to go back to RIRs for additional space too frequently, the overhead
associated with managing address space that grows through a number of
small successive incremental expansions rather than through fewer,
but larger, expansions, etc.This para talks about trying to minimize overhead as a site grows, but if a site is allocated a /48 and needs an additional /48 for expansion then according to 5.5.3The LIR whose customers needs an additional /48 request needs to be reviewed at the RIR/NIR level. Is this really minimizing overhead!!Maybe this section needs more text and a reference to 5.5.3?
3.8. Conflict of goals
The goals of conservation, aggregation and minimization of
administrative overhead often conflict with each other. In IPv6
address management, the six goals described above are given different
priorities from the implicit priorities of IPv4 address management.IPv6 address management should give higher priority to aggregation
and lower priority to address conservation, when compared with
current IPv4 management practices. This does not mean that wasteful
address usage should be tolerated because vast address space is
available. Instead, emphasis is placed on the need for policies that
place aggregation in higher priority so that the number of external
and internal routes will be practically limited in the large address
space to ensure stable Internet operations for a long time to come.
Emphasis on aggregation sometimes leads to somewhat lower priority on
address conservation because these two goals tend to conflict with
each other.It should be noted that an exclusive choice between aggregation and
conservation will not be made on the basis of the policies or
judgment of any registry practices in accordance with these policies.Both aggregation and conservation should be taken into consideration
in the right balance. In IPv6, the right balance is generally "more
aggregation, less conservation".The balance between aggregation and conservation will be reviewed
over time according to various factors, such as operational
experience and address consumption.Some or all of the goals described here may occasionally be in
conflict with the interests of individual IRs or end users.
Therefore, all IRs evaluating requests for allocations and
assignments must make judgment, seeking to balance the needs of the
applicant with the needs of the Internet community as a whole.The policies described in this document are intended to help IRs
balance these needs in consistent and equitable ways. Full
documentation of and transparency within the decision making process
must also be maintained in order to achieve this result.
4. IPv6 Policy Principles
To address the goals described in the previous section, the policies
in this document discuss and follow the basic principles described
below.
4.1. Address space not to be considered property
It is contrary to the goals of this document and is not in the
interests of the Internet community as a whole for address space to
be considered freehold property.The global IPv6 policies in this document are based upon the
understanding that address space is lease-licensed for use rather
than owned. All Internet Registries are expected to manage address
space operations correctly in accordance with this principle.According to this policy, IP addresses will be allocated on a lease-
license basis, with such lease-licenses to be of specific limited
duration of normally one year. Conditions of a lease-license have
specific conditions applied at the start or renewal of the lease.Lease-licenses will typically be renewed automatically at the end of
their duration when the following two conditions are met:
a) The original basis of the allocation remains valid.
b) Registration requirements relating to that allocation have been
fulfilled at the time of renewalHowever, when a lease-license is renewed, the new lease-license will
be evaluated under and governed by the applicable resource allocation
and renewal policies in place at the time of renewal.It is not clear what "resource allocation and renewal policies" are exactly. There is no definition of them in this document.Sounds like we are moving towards the way the DNS system works with the renewal of Domain Names.
Changes to the conditions of current lease-licences shall be subject
to a definite period of notice, except in exceptional circumstances
recognized by a consensus of the Internet community.As address space is not owned, and consistent with the desire to
avoid excessive fragmentation of address space, it may become
necessary in extreme circumstances to renumber assignments. Such
renumbering will only be undertaken after extensive consultation with
the Internet community.
4.2. Routability not guaranteed
Because IPv6 is fundamentally based upon aggregatable addresses, its
circumstance differs from IPv4, which contains a number of non-
provider-based assignments for historical reasons. Nonetheless,
registries are not responsible for routability, which is affected by
the technical implementation by LIRs/ISPs. RIRs must take steps,
however, to ensure that allocations they make will not result in
excessively fragmented address space, as that may lead to loss of
routability.
4.3. Minimum Allocation
As under current IPv4 management policies, it is proposed that IPv6
policies establish a "minimum allocation" of address space, which
serves to limit the distribution by Internet Registries of portable
address prefixes.Generally speaking, making minimum allocation size too small leads to
address fragmentation, and making the size too large lowers the
efficiency of address use. Discussion about the appropriate size of
allocation needs to be continued in the future. The interim policies
adopt the following concept:First, a minimum address space (/32) will be provided by default by
RIR/NIR to LIRs. However, many large providers will quickly deplete
a /32 space and need to use more address space within a short time.
For this reason, providers requiring space larger than a /32 may
request more address space, but must provide justification for such a
request.
4.4. Consideration of IPv4 Infrastructure
Where an existing IPv4 service provider requests IPv6 space for
eventual transition of existing services to IPv6, the number of
present IPv4 customers may be used as a reason for requesting more
space in justifying IPv6 address space requests. This is based upon
the implicit assumption that service providers having a large number
of IPv4 customers are likely to have many customers in IPv6 as well.This assumption should be evaluated and reviewed on the next occasion
of revising the policies.
5. Policies for allocations and assignments
5.1. Consistency of IR address space management policies
All Internet Registries shall adopt policies that are consistent with
the policies formulated by the Internet community and described in
this document.
5.2. Initial allocation
5.2.1. Initial allocation criteria
A requesting organization can receive an initial allocation by
demonstrating that it has an immediate (i.e., within next three
months) requirement for at least a /36 prefix. That is, immediately
after the allocation, the organization will have 776 or more sites in
need of address assignments. 776 is the number of /48 address blocks
that can be assigned out of a /36 address block to achieve an HD-
Ratio of 0.8. The HD-Ratio is an address allocation utilization
metric proposed in RFC 3194 as an adaptation of the H-Ratio
originally defined in [RFC1715]. (See also Section 5.3.3.)This para now mention 3 months, but this is too short a time to connect 776 customer sites. It is not obvious what the new time frame should be, but it should be longer than 3 months.
[Note: discussion is needed as to whether justification for need of a
/36 is reasonable initial starting point, or whether the criteria of
an immediate need to address 776 sites is too high. Note also, that
once a request for an initial allocation has been granted, the
minimum allocation (i.e., /32) is provided, even though the requestor
has not justified a need for such a large amount of space.]
5.2.2. Initial allocation size
A requesting organization satisfying the initial allocation criteria
can receive an initial allocation of the minimum /32 address block.
Any organization requesting a larger address block may receive the
necessary size of allocation by submitting documentation that
reasonably justifies the necessity. For instance, a provider or an
enterprise currently providing IPv4 address services may apply for
and receive an initial allocation of the size reasonably judged
necessary to provide all the existing users with IPv6 services. In
this case, the necessary size will be judged on the basis of the
number of existing users and infrastructure.Shouldn't this be that the IPv4 provider should be allocated an initial allocation for its IPv4 customers PLUS the next 2 years growth, as in 5.3.4. Otherwise we will have the scenario where an IP v4 provider switches to IPv6, and changes its customers over to IPv6 and then has to go back to the RIR to request an additional block for its new IPv6 customers. Suggest that the "2 year rule" should be applied here also.
This can be represented by the following expression:
S(0) = shorter(/32, eval(required prefix size))
where (required prefix size) is the prefix size of applicant
requesting allocation
5.3. Subsequent allocation
An organization (ISP/LIR) that has already received an address block
from an RIR/NIR may receive a subsequent allocation in accordance
with the following policies.
5.3.1. Subsequent allocation criteria
Subsequent allocation will be provided when an organization (ISP/LIR)
satisfies the evaluation threshold of past address utilization in
terms of the number of sites in units of /48 assignments. The HD-
Ratio is used to assess the utilization of the existing address block
as described below.
5.3.2. Utilization Metric
In general, HD-Ratio [RFC3194] is expressed as follows:
Log (number of allocated objects)
HD = ------------------------------------------------
Log (maximum number of allocatable objects)
where the objects are IPv6 site addresses (/48s) assigned from an
IPv6 prefix of length P.The utilization threshold T, expressed as a number of individual /48
prefixes to be allocated from IPv6 prefix P, can be calculated as:
((48-P)*HD)
T = 2
Thus, the utilization threshold for an organization requesting
subsequent allocation of IPv6 address block is specified as a
function of the prefix size and target HD ratio. This utilization
refers to the allocation of /48s to end sites, and not the
utilization of those /48s within those end sites. It is an address
allocation utilization ratio and not an address assignment
utilization ratio.5.3.3. Applied HD-Ratio
A desirable HD-Ratio for evaluation is thought to lie between 0.80
and 0.85, with the actual value needing to be determined as
experience is gathered from implementation of this policy. An HD-
ratio of 0.8 is adopted for this interim policy. The value may change
in response to implementation experience.
5.3.4. Subsequent Allocation Size
The size of an "n"-th time subsequent allocation S(n) is found as:
S(n) = shorter(S(n-1)-1, eval(two_years_req))
where S(n-1)-1 represents one bit shorter prefix address block size
of the previous allocated address block size, and eval(two_years_req)
represents the evaluation of two-year demands of the requesting
organization.In other words, an organization (ISP/LIR) satisfying the criteria can
receive at least one bit shorter prefix automatically.If an organization needs more address space, it needs to demonstrate
its two-year demand to an RIR/NIR. Then, the RIR/NIR evaluates it and
allocates the address prefix enough to satisfy its two-year
requirements.
5.4. LIR-to-ISP allocation
There is no specific policy for an organization (ISP/LIR) to allocate
address space to subordinate ISPs. Each LIR organization may develop
its own policy for subordinate ISPs to encourage optimum utilization
of the total address block allocated to the LIR. However, the LIR is
required to keep track of all /48s assignments, including assignments
made by its subordinate ISPs to end users, and report the assignment
status to RIR/NIR so that the HD-Ratio can be evaluated when a
subsequent allocation becomes necessary.Here the text implies that the LIR should keep track of all subordinate allocations, which means that if an LIR allocates a block to a subordinate ISP then the LIR needs to keep track of all the /48s that the subordinate ISP allocates to its own customers. Then, when the LIR requests a larger allocation, that same LIR needs to report these allocations to RIR/NIR so that the RIR/NIR can then calculate the subsequent allocation. However, earlier in "3.3. Registration" it says that "Every assignment and allocation of Internet address space must be registered in a public registry database accessible to all members of the Internet community"
It also talks about registration in 5.6 see below.
This registration question needs clarifying - the document contradicts itself.Currently in IPv4, addresses are registered in either a public database or in the LIR's own database, thus allowing a mixture. Thus, if we need to keep our customer information private, we can keep it "off" a public database, but if the customer does want to be seen in the public database then we can enter it. Suggest the same principle needs to be applied to IPv6.
5.5. Assignment
This section describes the assignment policy.
5.5.1. Assignment address space size
Address space following the 64th bit is the IETF boundary [RFC2460].
Address space following the 48th bit is a policy boundary, with IETF
recommendations [RFC3177] and RIR agreement [RIRs-on-48] recommending
the assignment of:- /48 in the general case, except for very large subscribers
- /64 when it is known that one and only one subnet is needed by
design
- /128 when it is absolutely known that one and only one device is
connecting.RIRs/NIRs are not concerned about which address size an LIR/ISP
actually assigns. Accordingly, RIRs/NIRs will not request the
detailed information on user networks as they did in IPv4, except for
the cases described in Section 4.4. and for the purposes of measuring
utilization as defined in this document.
5.5.2. Assignment to a site
5.5.3. Assignment of multiple /48s to a single site
When a single site requires an additional /48 address block, it can
request the assignment with documentation or materials that justify
the request. Requests for multiple or additional /48s will be
processed and reviewed (i.e., evaluation of justification) at the
RIR/NIR level.
5.5.4. Assignment to operator's infrastructure
An organization (ISP/LIR) may assign a /48 per PoP as the service
infrastructure of an IPv6 service operator. Each assignment to a PoP
is regarded as one assignment regardless of the number of users using
the PoP. On the other hand, a separate assignment can be obtained
for the in-house operations of the operator.5.6. DB registration
When an organization in reciept of an IPv6 address allocation makes
IPv6 address assignments, it must register assignment information in
a public database (initially a database maintained by an RIR/NIR,
which may be replaced by a distributed database for registering
address management information in future). Information is registered
in units of assigned /48 networks. When an organization assigns an
address space larger than a /48 to another organization, it must
monitor if this organization has registered address utilization
information in a public database.This para talks about an organization (LIR) assigning an address space larger than a /48 to another organization. In this case it implies that the other organization (NOT THE LIR) must register its /48's in a public database and that the LIR must ensure that the other organization has done this. But section 3.3 implies that every allocation be an a public database, and section 5.4 implies that it is not.
RIR/NIRs will use registered data to calculate the HD-Ratio at the
time of application for subsequent allocation and to check for
changes in assignments over time.Each registry shall handle personal information with ultimate care.
Concrete methods of protecting personal data shall be in accordance
with privacy policies of each RIR/NIR (e.g., assign providers as
tech-c or admin-c, divide an address in the middle, etc.).
5.7. Reverse lookup
When an RIR/NIR delegates IPv6 address space to an organization, it
also delegates the right to manage the reverse lookup zone that
corresponds to the allocated IPv6 address space. Each organization
should properly manage its reverse lookup zone. When making an
address assignment, the organization must delegate to an assigned
organization, upon request, the right to manage the reverse lookup
zone that corresponds to the assigned address.
5.8. Validity of allocations and assignments
An allocation or assignment of address space is valid only so long as
the original criteria on which the allocation or assignment was based
continues to be valid.If an allocation or assignment is made for a specific purpose, but
the original purpose or original justification no longer applies, the
allocation or assignment shall become invalid.If an allocation or assignment is based on information that is found
to be false or incomplete, the allocation or assignment shall become
invalid.Invalid allocations shall be returned to the appropriate IR.
5.9. Existing IPv6 address space holders
Once the policies described in this document have been adopted, an
organization already receiving an allocation according to the
"PROVISIONAL IPv6 ASSIGNMENT AND ALLOCATION POLICY DOCUMENT"
[RIRv6-Polices] is immediately eligible to having its allocation
expanded to a /32 address block. The /32 address block will contain
the already allocated smaller address block (one or multiple /35
address blocks in many cases) that was already reserved by the RIR
for a subsequent allocation to the organization. Requests for
additional space beyond the minimum /32 size will be evaluated as
discussed elsewhere in the document.
6. Special case
Special considerations will be given to the cases described below,
with no regard to the provision of this document. Individual RIRs are
currently discussing policies for these cases independent of this
document.
6.1. IX (Internet Exchange)
An IX is a point at which ISPs connect with one another. It requires
ISP-independent addresses.
7. Acknowledgment
The initial version of this document was produced by The JPNIC IPv6
global policy drafting team consisting of Akihiro Inomata, Akinori
Maemura, Kosuke Ito, Kuniaki Kondo, Takashi Arano, Tomohiro Fujisaki,
and Toshiyuki Yamasaki. Special thanks goes out to this team, who
worked over a holiday in order to produce an initial document
quickly.An editing team was then organized by representatives from each of
the three RIRs (Takashi Arano, Chair of APNIC's Policy SIG, Thomas
Narten, Chair of ARIN's IPv6 WG, and David Kessens, Chair of RIPE-
NCC's IPv6 WG).The editing team would like to acknowledge the contributions to this
document of Takashi Arano, John Crain, Steve Deering, Kosuke Ito,
Richard Jimmerson, David Kessens, Mirjam Kuehne, Anne Lord, Jun
Murai, Paul Mylotte, Thomas Narten, Ray Plzak, Paul Wilson and
Wilfried Woeber.8. References
[RFC1715] "The H Ratio for Address Assignment Efficiency", C.
Huitema.
November 1994, RFC 1715.[RFC1771] "A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", Y. Rekhter, T. Li.
March
1995, RFC 1771.[IAB-Request] "Email from IAB to IANA", [XXX need better reference].
See IAB Minutes, Dec. 12, 1998, <ftp://ftp.iab.org/in>-
notes/IAB/IABmins/IABmins.981208, <ftp://ftp.iab.org/in>-
notes/IAB/IABmins/IABmins.990112.[RFC2373] "IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture", R. Hinden, S.
Deering. July 1998, RFC 2373.[RFC2373bis] draft-ietf-ipngwg-addr-arch-v3-07.txt.
[RFC2460] "Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", S.
Deering, R. Hinden. December 1998, RFC 2460.[RFC2780] "IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture", R. Hinden, S.
Deering. July 1998. RFC 2373.[RFC2928] "Initial IPv6 Sub-TLA ID Assignments", R. Hinden, S.
Deering, R. Fink, T. Hain. September 2000, RFC 2928.[RFC3177] "IAB/IESG Recommendations on IPv6 Address". IAB, IESG.
September 2001, RFC 3177.
[RFC3194] "The H-Density Ratio for Address Assignment Efficiency An
Update on the H ratio", A. Durand, C. Huitema. November 2001,
RFC 3194.[RIRs-on-48] <http://www.arin.net/minutes/bot/bot08152001.html>, XXX
fill in.[RIRv6-Policies]
<http://www.arin.net/regserv/ipv6/ipv6guidelines.html>,
<http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-196.html>,
<http://www.apnic.net/docs/drafts/ipv6/ipv6-policy-280599.html>.9. Appendix A:
In accordance with the recommendations of "The Host-Density Ratio for
Address Assignment Efficiency: An update on the H ratio" [RFC 3194],
it is proposed in this draft to adopt an HD-Ratio of 0.8 as the
utilization threshold for IPv6 address space allocations.The following table provides equivalent absolute and percentage
address utilization figures for IPv6 prefixes, corresponding to an
HD-Ratio of 0.8P 48-P Total /48s Threshold Util%
48 0 1 1 100.0%
47 1 2 2 87.1%
46 2 4 3 75.8%
45 3 8 5 66.0%
44 4 16 9 57.4%
43 5 32 16 50.0%
42 6 64 28 43.5%
41 7 128 49 37.9%
40 8 256 84 33.0%
39 9 512 147 28.7%
38 10 1024 256 25.0%
37 11 2048 446 21.8%
36 12 4096 776 18.9%
35 13 8192 1351 16.5%
34 14 16384 2353 14.4%
33 15 32768 4096 12.5%
32 16 65536 7132 10.9%
31 17 131072 12417 9.5%
30 18 262144 21619 8.2%
29 19 524288 37641 7.2%
28 20 1048576 65536 6.3%
27 21 2097152 114105 5.4%
26 22 4194304 198668 4.7%
25 23 8388608 345901 4.1%
24 24 16777216 602249 3.6%
23 25 33554432 1048576 3.1%
22 26 67108864 1825677 2.7%
21 27 134217728 3178688 2.4%
20 28 268435456 5534417 2.1%
19 29 536870912 9635980 1.8%
18 30 1073741824 16777216 1.6%
17 31 2147483648 29210830 1.4%
16 32 4294967296 50859008 1.2%
15 33 8589934592 88550677 1.0%
14 34 17179869184 154175683 0.9%
13 35 34359738368 268435456 0.8%
12 36 68719476736 467373275 0.7%
11 37 137438953472 813744135 0.6%
10 38 274877906944 1416810831 0.5%
9 39 549755813888 2466810934 0.4%
8 40 1099511627776 4294967296 0.4%
7 41 2199023255552 7477972398 0.3%
6 42 4398046511104 13019906166 0.3%
5 43 8796093022208 22668973294 0.3%
4 44 17592186044416 39468974941 0.2%DRAFT [Page 20]