[Following text is to appear in the RIPE Policy document, IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy for the RIPE NCC Service Region if the proposal reaches consensus. Please review this change that the proposal is bringing within the drafted policy document from the link above in “Draft RIPE Document”]
New:
IPv6 Provider Independent (PI) Assignments:
To qualify for IPv6 PI address space, an organisation must:
a) not be an LIR
b) demonstrate that it will be multihomed
c) meet the requirements of the policies described in the RIPE NCC document entitled “Contractual Requirements for Provider Independent Resources Holders in the RIPE NCC Service Region”
The RIPE NCC will assign the prefix directly to the End User organisations upon a request properly submitted to the RIPE NCC, either directly or through a sponsoring LIR.
The minimum size of the assignment is a /48. Organisations requesting a larger assignment (shorter prefix) must provide documentation justifying the need for additional subnets.
Additional assignments may also be made when the need is demonstrated and documented based on address usage, or because different routing requirements exist for additional assignments. When possible, these further assignments will be made from an adjacent address block.
Assignments will be made from a separate 'designated block' to facilitate filtering practices.
The PI assignment cannot be further assigned to other organisations.
a. Arguments Supporting the Proposal
Currently, there is no solution for End User organisations that require redundancy in IPv6. This is perceived as a clear barrier to deployment of IPv6 in some organisations. This policy proposal aims to solve this problem by means of providing a direct assignment from the RIPE NCC.
The other four RIR regions already have a policy for assigning IPv6 PI address space.
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 from the five RIR regions that opt for the IPv6 PI address space will be in an equal position once the community agrees a long-term technical solution. These organisations will have to either move to this new solution or become an LIR, if they qualify.
b. Arguments Opposing the Proposal
The possible effect of this proposal is the growth of the global routing table to a level that, together with existing and forecasted 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.
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 policy may have if the proposal is accepted and implemented.
A. Impact of Policy on Registry and Addressing System
Address/Internet Number Resource Consumption:
We assumed that one immediate potential possibility that the proposal could bring if it were to become a policy would be for all existing IPv4 PI holders to request a /48 for each IPv4 prefix they have. At the time this analysis was carried out, there were approximately 22,000 objects with the status ASSIGNED PI in the RIPE Database [1]. 22,000 /48s resolve into a little over a /34 and a /36 of IPv6 address space.
Fragmentation/Aggregation:
The introduction of this policy would increase the number of entries in the routing table, simply because the proposal is for assignment of new IPv6 prefixes.
Currently, the IPv6 tables collected by Routing Information Service (RIS) contain approximately 2,000 ROUTE6 object entries [2].
At the time this analysis was carried out, there were approximately 22,000 objects with the status ASSIGNED PI in the RIPE Database [1]. Again, we assumed that one immediate potential possibility could be for all existing IPv4 PI holders to request and route a /48 for each IPv4 prefix they have. In that case, the routing tables would increase by a factor of 10 compared to today's size.
In the short term (up to one year), the impact of already existing IPv6 PI policies in other regions suggests a rather limited increase in routing table entries:
- ARIN started with IPv6 PI in September 2006. To date, the stats files contain less than 200 IPv6 assignments from 2620::/23. [3]
- APNIC is making "Portable IPv6" assignments since June 2007. The stats files report only 36 entries under 2001:df0::/29. [4]
Although regional differences certainly exist, it seems unlikely that the RIPE NCC would assign thousands of IPv6 assignments in the first years.
B. Impact of Policy on RIPE NCC Operations/Services
Although it is thought to be unlikely, there is still the possibility that if the proposal 2006-01 is accepted and it is implemented as a policy, the RIPE NCC would receive a large number of requests under this new policy in a very short time. Should this occur, the RIPE NCC will attempt to minimise the impact on its service level by evaluating the requests under this new policy in a separate queue from other requests. This might delay the evaluation of requests for IPv6 PI space slightly, but it will ensure prompt evaluation of all other requests.
References:
[1] ftp://ftp.ripe.net/pub/stats/ripencc/delegated-ripencc-latest
[2] The UNIX command "whois -M -h riswhois.ripe.net 0::0/0 |grep route6 |sort |uniq -c |wc" reports 1,858 unique IPv6 prefixes on 26 January 2009.
[3] ftp://ftp.ripe.net/pub/stats/arin/delegated-arin-latest
[4] ftp://ftp.ripe.net/pub/stats/apnic/delegated-apnic-latest
you are here: RIPE > Policy Development > Policy Proposals
