This policy proposal has been withdrawn

Multiple IPv6 /32 Allocations for LIRs

This is a proposal to allow an LIR operating separate networks in unconnected geographical areas to receive multiple /32 IPv6 allocations.

Summary of Proposal:

This is a proposal to allow an LIR operating separate networks in unconnected geographical areas to receive multiple /32 IPv6 allocations.

Policy Text

New (in ripe-450)

LIRs that operate separate networks with unique routing policies in different unconnected geographical areas are eligible to receive multiple /32 allocations. For each additional /32 allocation there should be an existing IPv4 network in place with a separate AS number and a unique routing policy. In case the routing policies would no longer be unique and/or the networks have effectively merged, the additional /32 allocations must be returned to the RIPE NCC.

Rationale:

a. Arguments supporting the proposal

It is believed that this policy change would be a good solution for LIRs operating multiple unconnected networks, taking into account IP addressing management and routing limitations.

Today, an LIR that runs multiple networks with unique peering and transit relations can only get a single IPv6 allocation. According to the IPv6 policy an IPv6 allocation must be announced as one prefix. Therefore, an organisation operating four separate networks with one /32 IPv6 allocation cannot de-aggregate into for example a /34 route announcement per network.

The IPv6 policy in effect forces the LIRs that operate such separate networks to merge the networks together, which may not always be feasible for technical or legal reasons.

Currently, as an alternative solution, it is possible to get more than one /32 per organisation by opening multiple LIRs. That is a lot of administration with the same result as if the additional /32 would be allocated to the same LIR. However, this is not seen as a good practice.

Moreover, after setting up the LIRs and receiving the allocations the organisation could merge the different LIRs and transfer the allocations (cost-free) to the remaining LIR, which is not a good practice either.

b. Arguments Opposing the Proposal

A large LIR with multiple legal entities with one routing policy would be able to receive a larger amount of IPv6 space based on usage requirements. However, the LIR would face difficulties if the networks have to be split up in the future due to changes in the legal organisational structure.