In order to receive an allocation from the final /8, LIRs are currently required to have received an IPv6 allocation.
This proposal aims to remove the requirement. All other requirements for receiving an allocation from the final /8 remain in place.
[The following text will update section 5.1 in the RIPE Document, “IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region Link: /docs/ipv4-policies ”, if the proposal reaches consensus.]
[...]
Allocations will only be made to LIRs if they have already received an IPv6 allocation from an upstream LIR or the RIPE NCC.
Since there is a huge difference between having received an IPv6 allocation and actually deploying IPv6, there is doubt that the requirement has in fact lead to wider IPv6 adoption.
Previous versions of this proposal relaxed the requirement in order to deal with the above example. However, consensus on the exact wording could not be reached.
This proposal aims to relax this requirement.
The new text proposes that organisations are eligible to receive an allocation from the final /8 if they have an inet6num object registered in the RIPE Database or any of the other RIR databases mirrored by the RIPE NCC.
[The following text will update sections 5.1 in the RIPE Policy Document “IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region Link: /publications/docs/ripe-622/ ”, if the proposal reaches consensus.]
[...]
Allocations will only be made to LIRs if they have already received an IPv6 allocation from an upstream LIR or the RIPE NCC.
[...]
Allocations will only be made to LIRs if they have already received a valid globally routeable unicast IPv6 address block.
Relaxing the requirements for receiving IPv4 space may lead to a slightly faster run-out rate of IPv4. The authors do not expect this change to have a significant impact, because LIRs are still only entitled to a single /22 from the remaining address pool.
The IPv6 requirement can be seen as a way for the RIPE community to encourage IPv6 deployment. Without this requirement, it could be argued that the community is not doing everything in its power to speed up the transition to the new protocol. However, the RIPE allocation and assignment policies exist to define procedures for handing out address space. They are not meant to be vehicles for political statements.
Note: In order to provide additional information related to the proposal, details of an impact analysis carried out by the RIPE NCC are documented below. The projections presented in this analysis are based on existing data and should be viewed only as an indication of the possible impact that the proposal might have if it is accepted and implemented.
It is the RIPE NCC's understanding that this proposal will permit a Local Internet Registry (LIR) to receive its final /22 IPv4 allocation /22 IPv4 Allocation from the RIPE NCC without the need to have an IPv6 allocation from the RIPE NCC or from an upstream LIR. The LIR must still meet all other requirements described in the policy for allocating and assigning IPv4 space in the RIPE NCC service region. when it has received a block of IPv6 Global Unicast Addresses according to valid (regional) policy. This address block must be clearly registered to the RIPE NCC member in the RIPE Database or any RIR database mirrored by the RIPE NCC.
Address/Internet AddressInternet Number Resource Consumption
The number of new IPv6 allocations is a likely to decrease if the proposal is accepted, as new members that are only interested in receiving /22 IPv4 allocations opt not to receive an IPv6 allocation. With around 1,000 members joining the RIPE NCC in 2014, this could be represented graphically as a significant drop-off in IPv6 allocations, for example in this graph Link: https://labs.ripe.net/statistics/lirs-with-and-without-ipv6 .
An increase in the IPv4 consumption is possible, as some organisations might not have requested their IPv4 allocation due to the IPv6 requirement, however the RIPE NCC has no historic date to estimate the actual increase.
Fragmentation/Aggregation
After analysing the data that is currently available, the RIPE NCC does not anticipate that any significant impact will be caused if this proposal is implemented.
Fragmentation/Aggregation
After analysing the data that is currently available, the RIPE NCC does not anticipate that any significant impact will be caused if this proposal is implemented.
OperationsServices Registration Services
If this proposed policy is accepted,
a decrease in IPv6 allocation requests is expected. In regards to the workload of the RIPE NCC’s Registration Services, no significant impact is anticipated.
Outreach
This proposal removes the requirement that a network already has an IPv6 allocation before it can receive a final /22This is expected to be a low-to-medium impact, depending on the response from stakeholder groups.
LIRs that have already received IPv6 address space and do not want to request their IPv6 allocation from the RIPE NCC need to provide the IPv6 range that they are currently using. Registration Services will then verify in the RIR databases if the range is correctly registered to the RIPE NCC member. If this is confirmed, the IPv4 allocation will be provided given that all requirements in section 5.1 are met. Delay and extra workload is only expected if the provided IPv6 range is not clearly registered to the requesting RIPE NCC member.
Billing/Finance Department
After analysing the data that is currently available, the RIPE NCC does not anticipate that any significant impact will be caused if this proposal is implemented
RIPE Database
After analysing the data that is currently available, the RIPE NCC does not anticipate that any significant impact will be caused if this proposal is implemented.
The Board notes that increased outreach effort and associated increased budget may be necessary to counter the (mistaken) impression that the RIPE community no longer cares about IPv6 rollout.
E. Legal Impact of PolicyAfter analysing the data that is currently available, the RIPE NCC does not anticipate that any significant impact will be caused if this proposal is implemented.
F.It is possible that a RIPE NCC member has multiple LIRs. Currently, the RIPE NCC allocates a /22 per LIR. Given that the intention of the proposal is to relax the IPv6 requirements, the RIPE NCC understands that it would be satisfactory for a RIPE NCC member to have received an IPv6 address block for any of its LIRs.
The IPv6 address space must be registered to the legal entity that has signed the RIPE NCC Standard Service Agreement, i.e. the RIPE NCC member. The criteria of this policy would not be met if the IPv6 address block is registered with another organisation that is affiliated with the RIPE NCC member (belonging to the same group of companies or being a subsidiary or holding company etc.).
The RIPE NCC estimates that if this proposal is accepted the implementation would have a low impact.
Existing processes, supporting software and documentation would need to be updated to remove verify that the IPv6 requirement is fulfilled for receiving the IPv4 allocation from the RIPE NCC.