You are here: Home > Participate > Policy Development > Policy Proposals > Provider Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End User Organisations

Changes to Provider Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End User Organisations

Legend (+) Added (-) Deleted
Changed Tag Added Tag Deleted

This proposal introduced a solution for organisations that needed IPv6 Provider Independent (PI) address space.

Summary of Proposal:

This proposal introduces a solution for organisations that need IPv6 Provider Independent (PI) address space.

insert: <p>

The PI assignment cannot be further assigned to other organisations. insert: </p>

insert: <div>
insert: <p>

  insert: </p>

insert: </div>

Rationale:

a. Arguments Supporting the Proposal

Currently, At the moment there is no solution for the End User organisations that Organisations which require redundancy in IPv6. This is perceived as a clear barrier to for deployment of IPv6 in some organisations. This policy proposal aims to solve this problem addresses that barrier by means of providing a direct assignment from the RIPE NCC.

The All 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 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 solution and 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 the 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.

 

delete: <h2> delete: <b> Additional Information: delete: </b> delete: </h2> delete: <p> delete: <b> Note: delete: </b> 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. delete: </p> delete: <h3> delete: <b> A. Impact of Policy on Registry and Addressing System delete: </b> delete: </h3> delete: <p> delete: <b> Address/Internet Number Resource Consumption: delete: </b> delete: </p> delete: <p> 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 delete: <sup> delete: <a href="http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2006-01.html#ref1"> [1] delete: </a> delete: </sup> . 22,000 /48s resolve into a little over a /34 and a /36 of IPv6 address space. delete: </p> delete: <p> delete: <b> Fragmentation/Aggregation: delete: </b> delete: </p> delete: <p> 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. delete: </p> delete: <p> Currently, the IPv6 tables collected by Routing Information Service (RIS) contain approximately 2,000 ROUTE6 object entries delete: <sup> delete: <a href="http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2006-01.html#ref2"> [2] delete: </a> delete: </sup> . delete: </p> delete: <p> At the time this analysis was carried out, there were approximately 22,000 objects with the status ASSIGNED PI in the RIPE Database delete: <sup> delete: <a href="http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2006-01.html#ref1"> [1] delete: </a> delete: </sup> . 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. delete: </p> delete: <p> 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: delete: </p> delete: <ul> delete: <li> ARIN started with IPv6 PI in September 2006. To date, the stats files contain less than 200 IPv6 assignments from 2620::/23. delete: <sup> delete: <a href="http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2006-01.html#ref1"> [3] delete: </a> delete: </sup> delete: </li> delete: <li> APNIC is making "Portable IPv6" assignments since June 2007. The stats files report only 36 entries under 2001:df0::/29. delete: <sup> delete: <a href="http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2006-01.html#ref1"> [4] delete: </a> delete: </sup> delete: </li> delete: </ul> delete: <p> Although regional differences certainly exist, it seems unlikely that the RIPE NCC would assign thousands of IPv6 assignments in the first years. delete: </p> delete: <h3> B. Impact of Policy on RIPE NCC Operations/Services delete: </h3> delete: <p> 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. delete: </p> delete: <h3> References: delete: </h3> delete: <p> delete: <a id="ref1" name="ref1"> delete: </a> [1] delete: <a href="ftp://ftp.ripe.net/pub/stats/ripencc/delegated-ripencc-latest"> ftp://ftp.ripe.net/pub/stats/ripencc/delegated-ripencc-latest delete: </a> delete: </p> delete: <p> delete: <a id="ref2" name="ref2"> delete: </a> [2] The UNIX command " delete: <tt> whois -M -h riswhois.ripe.net 0::0/0 |grep route6 |sort |uniq -c |wc delete: </tt> " reports 1,858 unique IPv6 prefixes on 26 January 2009. delete: </p> delete: <p> delete: <a id="ref3" name="ref3"> delete: </a> [3] delete: <a href="ftp://ftp.ripe.net/pub/stats/arin/delegated-arin-latest"> ftp://ftp.ripe.net/pub/stats/arin/delegated-arin-latest delete: </a> delete: </p> delete: <p> delete: <a id="ref4" name="ref4"> delete: </a> [4] delete: <a href="ftp://ftp.ripe.net/pub/stats/apnic/delegated-apnic-latest"> ftp://ftp.ripe.net/pub/stats/apnic/delegated-apnic-latest delete: </a> delete: </p>
delete: <h2> How to read this draft document: delete: </h2> delete: <p> This document relates to RIPE policy proposal 2006-01 - Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC. If approved, it will replace delete: <a class="internal-link" href="resolveuid/f41113b02cfcd666f4169e4ec1178f49" data-val="f41113b02cfcd666f4169e4ec1178f49" data-linktype="internal"> ripe-421 delete: </a> . To show you how the new document would be different to the old one, we have highlighted any new text or changes to the existing text. delete: </p> delete: <h3> We indicate changes to existing text in the document like this: delete: </h3> delete: <table class="grid listing" id="edit-table"> delete: <tbody> delete: <tr> delete: <td align="center" class="top"> delete: <b> ORIGINAL TEXT delete: </b> delete: </td> delete: <td class="top"> delete: <div align="center"> delete: <b> NEW TEXT delete: </b> delete: </div> delete: </td> delete: </tr> delete: <tr> delete: <td class="bottom"> delete: <p> The text from the current policy document that will be replaced is displayed here. delete: </p> delete: </td> delete: <td class="bottom"> delete: <p> The proposed new text will be displayed here. delete: </p> delete: </td> delete: </tr> delete: </tbody> delete: </table> delete: <h3> delete: <b> We indicate additions to the document like this: delete: </b> delete: </h3> delete: <table class="grid listing"> delete: <tbody> delete: <tr> delete: <td align="center" class="top"> delete: <b> ADDITION TO DOCUMENT >> delete: </b> delete: </td> delete: <td class="bottom"> The new insert: <p>

insert: <i> [Following text is shown here delete: </td> delete: </tr> delete: </tbody> delete: </table> delete: <p> All other text to appear in the document will not be replaced. delete: </p> delete: <hr noshade="noshade" size="1" /> RIPE Policy document, IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy for the RIPE NCC Service Region if the proposal reaches consensus.] insert: </i> insert: </p>

insert: <h3>

New: insert: </h3>

Abstract delete: </b> delete: </p> delete: <p> This document defines registry policies for the assignment and allocation of globally unique IPv6 addresses to Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and other organisations. It was developed through joint discussions among the APNIC, ARIN and RIPE communities. delete: </p> delete: <p> delete: <b> Contents delete: </b> delete: </p> delete: <p> delete: <a href="#intro"> 1. Introduction delete: </a> delete: <br /> delete: <a href="#overview"> 1.1. Overview delete: </a> delete: <br /> delete: <a href="#definitions"> 2. Definitions delete: </a> delete: <br /> delete: <a href="#ir"> 2.1. Internet Registry (IR) delete: </a> delete: <br /> delete: <a href="#rir"> 2.2. Regional Internet Registry (RIR) delete: </a> delete: <br /> delete: <a href="#nir"> 2.3. National Internet Registry (NIR) delete: </a> delete: <br /> delete: <a href="#lir"> 2.4. Local Internet Registry (LIR) delete: </a> delete: <br /> delete: <a href="#allocate"> 2.5. Allocate delete: </a> delete: <br /> delete: <a href="#assign"> 2.6. Assign delete: </a> delete: <br /> delete: <a href="#utilisation"> 2.7. Utilisation delete: </a> delete: <br /> delete: <a href="#hd_ratio"> 2.8. HD-Ratio delete: </a> delete: <br /> delete: <a href="#end_site"> 2.9. End Site delete: </a> delete: <br /> delete: <a href="#3"> 3. Goals of IPv6 address space management delete: </a> delete: <br /> delete: <a href="#goals"> 3.1. Goals delete: </a> delete: <br /> delete: <a href="#uniqueness"> 3.2. Uniqueness delete: </a> delete: <br /> delete: <a href="#registration"> 3.3. Registration delete: </a> delete: <br /> delete: <a href="#aggregation"> 3.4. Aggregation delete: </a> delete: <br /> delete: <a href="#conservation"> 3.5. Conservation delete: </a> delete: <br /> delete: <a href="#fairness"> 3.6. Fairness delete: </a> delete: <br /> delete: <a href="#overhead"> 3.7. Minimised Overhead delete: </a> delete: <br /> delete: <a href="#conflicts"> 3.8. Conflict of goals delete: </a> delete: <br /> delete: <a href="#4"> 4. IPv6 Policy Principles delete: </a> delete: <br /> delete: <a href="#property"> 4.1. Address space not to be considered property delete: </a> delete: <br /> delete: <a href="#routability"> 4.2. Routability not guaranteed delete: </a> delete: <br /> delete: <a href="#minimum_allocation"> 4.3. Minimum Allocation delete: </a> delete: <br /> delete: <a href="#ipv4_infrastructure"> 4.4. Consideration of IPv4 Infrastructure delete: </a> delete: <br /> delete: <a href="#5"> 5. Policies for allocations and assignments delete: </a> delete: <br /> delete: <a href="#initial_allocation"> 5.1. Initial allocation delete: </a> delete: <br /> delete: <a href="#initial_criteria"> 5.1.1. Initial allocation criteria delete: </a> delete: <br /> delete: <a href="#initial_size"> 5.1.2. Initial allocation size delete: </a> delete: <br /> delete: <a href="#subsequent_allocation"> 5.2. Subsequent allocation delete: </a> delete: <br /> delete: <a href="#subsequent_criteria"> 5.2.1. Subsequent allocation criteria delete: </a> delete: <br /> delete: <a href="#applied_hd_ratio"> 5.2.2. Applied HD-Ratio delete: </a> delete: <br /> delete: <a href="#subsequent_size"> 5.2.3. Subsequent Allocation Size delete: </a> delete: <br /> delete: <a href="#lir_to_isp"> 5.3. LIR-to-ISP allocation delete: </a> delete: <br /> delete: <a href="#assignment"> 5.4. Assignment delete: </a> delete: <br /> delete: <a href="#assignment_size"> 5.4.1. Assignment address space size delete: </a> delete: <br /> delete: <a href="#assignment_multiple"> 5.4.2. Assignments shorter than a /48 to a single End Site delete: </a> delete: <br /> delete: <a href="#assignment_infra"> 5.4.3. Assignment to operator's infrastructure delete: </a> delete: <br /> delete: <a href="#registration_assignment"> 5.5. Registration delete: </a> delete: <br /> delete: <a href="#reverse"> 5.6. Reverse lookup delete: </a> delete: <br /> delete: <a href="#existing"> 5.7. Existing IPv6 address space holders delete: </a> delete: <br /> delete: <a href="#experiment-assignments"> 6. Assignments for Internet Experiments delete: </a> delete: <br /> delete: <a href="#defining-experiment"> 6.1 Defining the experiment delete: </a> delete: <br /> delete: <a href="#publication"> 6.2 Publication delete: </a> delete: <br /> delete: <a href="#non-commercial"> 6.3 Non-commercial basis delete: </a> delete: <br /> delete: <a href="#period-of-registration"> 6.4 Period of the temporary resource registration delete: </a> delete: <br /> delete: <a href="#experiment-registration"> 6.5 Registration delete: </a> delete: <br /> delete: <a href="#request"> 6.6 Making the request delete: </a> delete: <br /> delete: <a href="#7"> 7. Assignments for Anycasting TLD Nameservers delete: </a> delete: </p> delete: <table class="grid listing" id="edit-table3"> delete: <tbody> delete: <tr> delete: <td align="center" class="top"> delete: <b> ORIGINAL TEXT delete: </b> delete: </td> delete: <td class="top"> delete: <div align="center"> delete: <b> NEW TEXT delete: </b> delete: </div> delete: </td> delete: </tr> delete: <tr> delete: <td class="bottom"> delete: <p> delete: <a href="#references"> 8. References delete: </a> delete: <br /> delete: <a href="#appendixA"> 9. Appendix A: HD-Ratio delete: </a> delete: <br /> delete: <a href="#appendixB"> 10. Appendix B: Background information delete: </a> delete: <br /> delete: <a href="#background"> 10.1. Background delete: </a> delete: <br /> delete: <a href="#why_joint_policy"> 10.2. Why a joint policy delete: </a> delete: <br /> delete: <a href="#size_ipv6_space"> 10.3. The size of IPv6's address space delete: </a> delete: <br /> delete: <a href="#ack"> 10.4. Acknowledgment delete: </a> delete: </p> delete: </td> delete: <td class="bottom"> delete: <p> delete: <a href="#PIAssignments"> 8. IPv6 Provider Independent (PI) Assignments delete: </a> delete: <br /> delete: <a href="#references"> 9. References delete: </a> delete: <br /> delete: <a href="#appendixA"> 10. Appendix A: HD-Ratio delete: </a> delete: <br /> delete: <a href="#appendixB"> 11. Appendix B: Background information delete: </a> delete: <br /> delete: <a href="#background"> 11.1. Background delete: </a> delete: <br /> delete: <a href="#why_joint_policy"> 11.2. Why a joint policy delete: </a> delete: <br /> delete: <a href="#size_ipv6_space"> 11.3. The size of IPv6's address space delete: </a> delete: <br /> delete: <a href="#ack"> 11.4. Acknowledgment delete: </a> delete: </p> delete: <p>   delete: </p> delete: <p>   delete: </p> delete: </td> delete: </tr> delete: </tbody> delete: </table> delete: <p> delete: <a name="intro"> delete: </a> delete: </p> delete: <h2> 1. Introduction delete: </h2> delete: <p> delete: <a name="overview"> delete: </a> delete: </p> delete: <h3> 1.1. Overview delete: </h3> delete: <p> This document describes policies for the allocation and assignment of globally unique Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6) address space. delete: </p> delete: <p>   delete: </p> delete: <p> [RFC 4291] designates 2000::/3 to be global unicast address space that the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) may allocate to the RIRs. In accordance with [RFC 4291], IANA allocated initial ranges of global unicast IPv6 address space from the 2000::/3 address block to the RIRs. This document concerns the initial and subsequent allocations of the 2000::/3 unicast address space, for which RIRs formulate allocation and assignment policies. All bits to the left of /64 are in scope. delete: </p> delete: <p> This policy is subject to future review and potential revision, subject to continuing experience in the administration of IPv6. delete: </p> delete: <p> delete: <a name="definitions"> delete: </a> delete: </p> delete: <h2> 2. Definitions delete: </h2> delete: <p> delete: <b> [Note: some of these definitions will be replaced by definitions from other RIR documents in order to be more consistent.] Assignments: delete: <b> delete: </b> delete: </p> delete: <p> The following terms and their definitions are of particular importance to the understanding of the goals, environment and policies described in this document. delete: </p> delete: <p> Responsibility for management of IPv6 address spaces is distributed globally in accordance with the hierarchical structure shown below. delete: </p> delete: <p> delete: <img alt="Distribution.gif" class="image-inline" height="496" src="resolveuid/c60d8c3d36f6d062befd7f2f9cfc03b1" width="504" /> delete: </p> delete: <p> delete: <a name="ir"> delete: </a> delete: </p> delete: <h3> 2.1. Internet Registry (IR) delete: </h3> delete: <p> An Internet Registry is an organisation 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. delete: </p> delete: <p> delete: <a name="rir"> delete: </a> delete: </p> delete: <h3> 2.2. Regional Internet Registry (RIR) delete: </h3> delete: <p> Regional Internet Registries are established and authorised by respective regional communities and recognised 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. delete: </p> delete: <p> delete: <a name="nir"> delete: </a> delete: </p> delete: <h3> 2.3. National Internet Registry (NIR) delete: </h3> delete: <p> A National Internet Registry primarily allocates address space to its members or constituents, which are generally LIRs organised at a national level. NIRs exist mostly in the Asia Pacific region. delete: </p> delete: <p> delete: <a name="lir"> delete: </a> delete: </p> delete: <h3> 2.4. Local Internet Registry (LIR) delete: </h3> delete: <p> A Local Internet Registry 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. delete: </p> delete: <p> delete: <a name="allocate"> delete: </a> delete: </p> delete: <h3> 2.5. Allocate delete: </h3> delete: <p> To “allocate” means to distribute address space to IRs for the purpose of subsequent distribution by them. delete: </p> delete: <p> delete: <a name="assign"> delete: </a> delete: </p> delete: <h3> 2.6. Assign delete: </h3> delete: <p> To “assign” means to delegate address space to an ISP or End User for specific use within the Internet infrastructure they operate. Assignments must only be made for specific purposes documented by specific organisations and are not to be sub-assigned to other parties. delete: </p> delete: <p> delete: <a name="utilisation"> delete: </a> delete: </p> delete: <h3> 2.7. Utilisation delete: </h3> delete: <p> The actual usage of addresses within each assignment may be low when compared to IPv4 assignments. In IPv6, "utilisation" is only measured in terms of the bits to the left of the efficiency measurement unit (/56). In other words, "utilisation" effectively refers to the assignment of network prefixes to End Sites and not the number of addresses assigned within individual End Site assignments. delete: </p> delete: <p> Throughout this document, the term "utilisation" refers to the assignment of network prefixes to End Sites and not the number of addresses assigned within individual subnets within those End Sites. delete: </p> delete: <p> delete: <a name="hd_ratio"> delete: </a> delete: </p> delete: <h3> 2.8. HD-Ratio delete: </h3> delete: <p> The HD-Ratio is a way of measuring the efficiency of address assignment [ delete: <a href="#references"> RFC 3194 delete: </a> ]. It is an adaptation of the H-Ratio originally defined in [ delete: <a href="#references"> RFC 1715 delete: </a> ] and is expressed as follows: delete: </p> delete: <p>   delete: </p> delete: <p> Log (number of allocated objects) delete: </p> delete: <p> HD = ------------------------------------------------ delete: </p> delete: <p> Log (maximum number of allocatable objects) delete: </p> delete: <p>   delete: </p> delete: <p> where (in the case of this document) the objects are IPv6 site addresses assigned from an IPv6 prefix of a given size. delete: </p> delete: <p> delete: <a name="end_site"> delete: </a> delete: </p> delete: <h3> 2.9. End Site delete: </h3> delete: <p> An End Site is defined as an End User (subscriber) who has a business or legal relationship (same or associated entities) with a service provider that involves: delete: </p> delete: <ul> delete: <li> that service provider assigning address space to the End User delete: </li> delete: <li> that service provider providing transit service for the End User to other sites delete: </li> delete: <li> that service provider carrying the End User's traffic delete: </li> delete: <li> that service provider advertising an aggregate prefix route that contains the End User's assignment delete: </li> delete: </ul> delete: <p> delete: <a name="3"> delete: </a> delete: </p> delete: <h2> 3. Goals of IPv6 address space management delete: </h2> delete: <p> delete: <a name="goals"> delete: </a> delete: </p> delete: <h3> 3.1. Goals delete: </h3> delete: <p> IPv6 address space is a public resource that must be managed in a prudent manner with regards to the long-term interests of the Internet. Responsible address space management involves balancing a set of sometimes competing goals. The following are the goals relevant to IPv6 address policy. delete: </p> delete: <p> delete: <a name="uniqueness"> delete: </a> delete: </p> delete: <h3> 3.2. Uniqueness delete: </h3> delete: <p> 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. delete: </p> delete: <p> delete: <a name="registration"> delete: </a> delete: </p> delete: <h3> 3.3. Registration delete: </h3> delete: <p> Internet address space must be registered in a registry database accessible to appropriate members of the Internet community. 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. delete: </p> delete: <p> The goal of registration should be applied within the context of reasonable privacy considerations and applicable laws. delete: </p> delete: <p> delete: <a name="aggregation"> delete: </a> delete: </p> delete: <h3> 3.4. Aggregation delete: </h3> delete: <p> 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 by ISPs and to limit the expansion of Internet routing tables. delete: </p> delete: <p> This goal is particularly important in IPv6 addressing, where the size of the total address pool creates significant implications for both internal and external routing. delete: </p> delete: <p> IPv6 address policies should seek to avoid fragmentation of address ranges. delete: </p> delete: <p> Further, RIRs should apply practices that maximise the potential for subsequent allocations to be made contiguous with past allocations currently held. However, there can be no guarantee of contiguous allocation. delete: </p> delete: <p> delete: <a name="conservation"> delete: </a> delete: </p> delete: <h3> 3.5. Conservation delete: </h3> delete: <p> Although IPv6 provides an extremely large pool of address space, address policies should avoid unnecessarily wasteful practices. Requests for address space should be supported by appropriate documentation and stockpiling of unused addresses should be avoided. delete: </p> delete: <p> delete: <a name="fairness"> delete: </a> delete: </p> delete: <h3> 3.6. Fairness delete: </h3> delete: <p> 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. delete: </p> delete: <p> delete: <a name="overhead"> delete: </a> delete: </p> delete: <h3> 3.7. Minimised overhead delete: </h3> delete: <p> It is desirable to minimise the overhead associated with obtaining address space. 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. delete: </p> delete: <p> delete: <a name="conflicts"> delete: </a> delete: </p> delete: <h3> 3.8. Conflict of goals delete: </h3> delete: <p> The goals described above will often conflict with each other, or with the needs of individual IRs or End Users. All IRs evaluating requests for allocations and assignments must make judgments, seeking to balance the needs of the applicant with the needs of the Internet community as a whole. delete: </p> delete: <p> In IPv6 address policy, the goal of aggregation is considered to be the most important. delete: </p> delete: <p> delete: <a name="4"> delete: </a> delete: </p> delete: <h2> 4. IPv6 Policy Principles delete: </h2> delete: <p> To address the goals described in the previous section, the policies in this document discuss and follow the basic principles described below. delete: </p> delete: <p> delete: <a name="property"> delete: </a> delete: </p> delete: <h3> 4.1. Address space not to be considered property delete: </h3> delete: <p> 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. delete: </p> delete: <p> The policies in this document are based upon the understanding that globally unique IPv6 unicast address space is licensed for use rather than owned. Specifically, IP addresses will be allocated and assigned on a license basis, with licenses subject to renewal on a periodic basis. The granting of a license is subject to specific conditions applied at the start or renewal of the license. delete: </p> delete: <p> RIRs will generally renew licenses automatically, provided requesting organisations are making a “good faith” effort at meeting the criteria under which they qualified for or were granted an allocation or assignment. However, in those cases where a requesting organisation is not using the address space as intended, or is showing bad faith in following through on the associated obligation, RIRs reserve the right to not renew the license. delete: </p> delete: <p> Note that when a license is renewed, the new license will be evaluated under and governed by the applicable IPv6 address policies in place at the time of renewal, which may differ from the policy in place at the time of the original allocation or assignment. delete: </p> delete: <p> delete: <a name="routability"> delete: </a> delete: </p> delete: <h3> 4.2. Routability not guaranteed delete: </h3> delete: <p> There is no guarantee that any address allocation or assignment will be globally routable. delete: </p> delete: <p> However, RIRs must apply procedures that reduce the possibility of fragmented address space which may lead to a loss of routability. delete: </p> delete: <p> delete: <a name="minimum_allocation"> delete: </a> delete: </p> delete: <h3> 4.3. Minimum allocation delete: </h3> delete: <p> RIRs will apply a minimum size for IPv6 allocations to facilitate prefix-based filtering. delete: </p> delete: <p> The minimum allocation size for IPv6 address space is /32. delete: </p> delete: <p> delete: <a name="ipv4_infrastructure"> delete: </a> delete: </p> delete: <h3> 4.4. Consideration of IPv4 infrastructure delete: </h3> delete: <p> 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 to justify a larger request than would be justified if based solely on the IPv6 infrastructure. delete: </p> delete: <p>   delete: </p> delete: <p> delete: <a name="5"> delete: </a> delete: </p> delete: <h2> 5. Policies for Allocations and Assignments delete: </h2> delete: <p> delete: <a name="initial_allocation"> delete: </a> delete: </p> delete: <h3> 5.1. Initial allocation delete: </h3> delete: <p> delete: <a name="initial_criteria"> delete: </a> delete: </p> delete: <h3> 5.1.1. Initial allocation criteria delete: </h3> insert: </p>

To qualify for an initial allocation of IPv6 address space, an organisation must: delete: </p> delete: <ul> delete: <li> a) be an LIR; delete: </li> delete: <li> b) advertise the allocation that they will receive as a single prefix if the prefix is to be used on the Internet; delete: </li> delete: <li> c) have a plan for making sub-allocations to other organisations and/or End Site assignments within two years. delete: </li> delete: </ul> delete: <p> delete: <a name="initial_size"> delete: </a> delete: </p> delete: <h3> 5.1.2. Initial allocation size delete: </h3> delete: <p> Organisations that meet the initial allocation criteria are eligible to receive a minimum allocation of /32. delete: </p> delete: <p> Organisations may qualify for an initial allocation greater than /32 by submitting documentation that reasonably justifies the request. If so, the allocation size will be based on the number of existing users and the extent of the organisation's infrastructure. delete: </p> delete: <p> delete: <a name="subsequent_allocation"> delete: </a> delete: </p> delete: <h3> 5.2. Subsequent allocation delete: </h3> delete: <p> Organisations that hold an existing IPv6 allocation may receive a subsequent allocation in accordance with the following policies. delete: </p> delete: <p> delete: <a name="subsequent_criteria"> delete: </a> delete: </p> delete: <h3> 5.2.1. Subsequent allocation criteria delete: </h3> delete: <p> Subsequent allocation will be provided when an organisation (i.e. ISP/LIR) satisfies the evaluation threshold of past address utilisation in terms of the number of sites in units of /56 assignments. The HD-Ratio [RFC 3194] is used to determine the utilisation thresholds that justify the allocation of additional address as described below. delete: </p> delete: <p> delete: <a name="applied_hd_ratio"> delete: </a> delete: </p> delete: <h3> 5.2.2. Applied HD-Ratio delete: </h3> delete: <p> The HD-Ratio value of 0.94 is adopted as indicating an acceptable address utilisation for justifying the allocation of additional address space. Appendix A provides a table showing the number of assignments that are necessary to achieve an acceptable utilisation value for a given address block size. delete: </p> delete: <p> delete: <a name="#subsequent_size"> delete: </a> delete: </p> delete: <h3> 5.2.3. Subsequent allocation size delete: </h3> delete: <p> When an organisation has achieved an acceptable utilisation for its allocated address space, it is immediately eligible to obtain an additional allocation that results in a doubling of the address space allocated to it. Where possible, the allocation will be made from an adjacent address block, meaning that its existing allocation is extended by one bit to the left. delete: </p> delete: <p> If an organisation needs more address space, it must provide documentation justifying its requirements for a two-year period. The allocation made will be based on this requirement. delete: </p> delete: <p> delete: <a name="lir_to_isp"> delete: </a> delete: </p> delete: <h3> 5.3. LIR-to-ISP allocation delete: </h3> delete: <p> There is no specific policy for an organisation (LIR) to allocate address space to subordinate ISPs. Each LIR organisation may develop its own policy for subordinate ISPs to encourage optimum utilisation of the total address block allocated to the LIR. However, all /48 assignments to End Sites are required to be registered either by the LIR or its subordinate ISPs in such a way that the RIR/NIR can properly evaluate the HD-Ratio when a subsequent allocation becomes necessary. delete: </p> delete: <p> delete: <a name="assignment"> delete: </a> delete: </p> delete: <h3> 5.4. Assignment delete: </h3> delete: <p> LIRs must make IPv6 assignments in accordance with the following provisions. delete: </p> delete: <p> delete: <a name="assignment_size"> delete: </a> delete: </p> delete: <h3> 5.4.1. Assignment address space size delete: </h3> delete: <p> End Users are assigned an End Site assignment from their LIR or ISP. The size of the assignment is a local decision for the LIR or ISP to make, using a minimum value of a /64 (only one subnet is anticipated for the End Site). delete: </p> delete: <p> delete: <a name="assignment_multiple"> delete: </a> delete: </p> delete: <h3> 5.4.2. Assignments shorter than a /48 to a single End Site delete: </h3> delete: <p> When a single End Site requires an assignment shorter than a /48, it must request the assignment with documentation or materials that justify the request. Requests for multiple or additional prefixes exceeding a /48 assignment for a single End Site will be processed and reviewed (i.e., evaluation of justification) at the RIR/NIR level. delete: </p> delete: <p> Note: There is no experience at the present time with the assignment of multiple network prefixes to the same End Site. Having the RIR review all such assignments is intended to be a temporary measure until some experience has been gained and some common policies can be developed. In addition, additional work at defining policies in this space will likely be carried out in the near future. delete: </p> delete: <p> delete: <a name="assignment_infra"> delete: </a> delete: </p> delete: <h3> 5.4.3. Assignment to operator's infrastructure delete: </h3> delete: <p> An organisation (i.e. ISP/LIR) may assign a network prefix 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. A separate assignment can be obtained for the in-house operations of the operator. delete: </p> delete: <p> delete: <a name="registration_assignment"> delete: </a> delete: </p> delete: <h3> 5.5. Registration delete: </h3> delete: <p> When an organisation holding an IPv6 address allocation makes IPv6 address assignments, it must register assignment information in a database, accessible by RIRs as appropriate. (Information registered by an RIR/NIR may be replaced by a distributed database for registering address management information in future). Information is registered at the granularity of End Site assignments. When more than a /48 is assigned to an organisation, the assigning organisation is responsible for ensuring that the address space is registered in an RIR/NIR database. delete: </p> delete: <p> 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. delete: </p> delete: <p> IRs shall maintain systems and practices that protect the security of personal and commercial information that is used in request evaluation, but which is not required for public registration. delete: </p> delete: <p> delete: <a name="reverse"> delete: </a> delete: </p> delete: <h3> 5.6. Reverse lookup delete: </h3> delete: <p> When an RIR/NIR delegates IPv6 address space to an organisation, it also delegates the responsibility to manage the reverse lookup zone that corresponds to the allocated IPv6 address space. Each organisation should properly manage its reverse lookup zone. When making an address assignment, the organisation must delegate to an assignee organisation, upon request, the responsibility to manage the reverse lookup zone that corresponds to the assigned address. delete: </p> delete: <p> delete: <a name="existing"> delete: </a> delete: </p> delete: <h3> 5.7. Existing IPv6 address space holders delete: </h3> delete: <p> Organisations that received /35 IPv6 allocations under the previous IPv6 address policy are immediately entitled to have their allocation expanded to a /32 address block without providing justification so long as they satisfy the criteria in Section 5.1.1. delete: </p> delete: <p>   delete: </p> delete: <p> 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 organisation. Requests for additional space beyond the minimum /32 size will be evaluated as discussed elsewhere in the document. delete: </p> delete: <p> delete: <a name="experiment-assignments"> delete: </a> delete: </p> delete: <h2> 6.0 Assignments for Internet Experiments delete: </h2> delete: <p> Organisations often require deployment tests for new Internet services and technologies. These require numbering resources for the duration of the test. delete: </p> delete: <p> The policy goal of resource conservation is of reduced importance when resources are issued on a temporary basis. delete: </p> delete: <p> delete: <a name="defining-experiment"> delete: </a> delete: </p> delete: <h3> 6.1 Defining the experiment delete: </h3> delete: <p> An organisation receiving numbering resources must document the experiment. This may be in the form of a current IETF Experimental RFC ( delete: <a href="#references"> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2026.txt see Sec. 4.2.1 delete: </a> ) or an “experiment proposal” detailing the resources required and the activities to be carried out. delete: </p> delete: <p> The assignment size will be equal to the existing minimum allocation size on the date the request is received. Where the experiment requires a variation to this rule it should be noted in the resource request. delete: </p> delete: <p> delete: <a name="publication"> delete: </a> delete: </p> delete: <h3> 6.2 Publication delete: </h3> delete: <p> The experiment proposal must be made public (e.g. published on web site), upon registration of the resources by the RIPE NCC. Following the conclusion of the experiment the results must be published free of charge and free from disclosure constraints. delete: </p> delete: <p> delete: <a name="non-commercial"> delete: </a> delete: </p> delete: <h3> 6.3 Non-commercial basis delete: </h3> delete: <p> Resources issued for an experiment must not be used for commercial purposes. delete: </p> delete: <p> delete: <a name="period-of-registration"> delete: </a> delete: </p> delete: <h3> 6.4 Period of the Temporary Resource Registration delete: </h3> delete: <p> The resources will be issued on a temporary basis for a period of one year. Renewal of the resource’s registration is possible on receipt of a new request that details any continuation of the experiment during the extended period. delete: </p> delete: <p> The resources issued cannot be used for a commercial service following the conclusion of the experiment. delete: </p> delete: <p> delete: <a name="experiment-registration"> delete: </a> delete: </p> delete: <h3> 6.5 Registration delete: </h3> delete: <p> The RIPE NCC will register the resources issued in the RIPE Whois Database. delete: </p> delete: <p> delete: <a name="request"> delete: </a> delete: </p> delete: <h3> 6.6 Making the request delete: </h3> delete: <p> The request must be made by a Local Internet Registry (LIR) using the appropriate request form for the resource found at: delete: </p> delete: <p> http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/internet-registries.html#request delete: </p> delete: <p> delete: <a name="7"> delete: </a> delete: </p> delete: <h2> 7. Assignments for Anycasting TLD Nameservers delete: </h2> delete: <p> If the name server set of a ccTLD or a gTLD without anycasting technology applied would not pass the 'IANA Administrative Procedure for Root Zone Name Server Delegation and Glue Data' the TLD administrator may receive a single dedicated /48 network prefix for the sole purpose of anycasting name servers, as described in RFC 3258. delete: </p> delete: <p> The prefix will be assigned by the RIPE NCC directly to the TLD, upon a request submitted via an existing LIR and will be registered with a status of 'ASSIGNED ANYCAST' in the RIPE Database and must be returned to the RIPE NCC if not in use for anycast DNS any longer. delete: </p> delete: <p> delete: <a id="PIAssignments" name="PIAssignments"> delete: </a> delete: </p> delete: <table class="grid listing"> delete: <tbody> delete: <tr> delete: <td align="center" class="top"> delete: <p> delete: <b> delete: <br /> ADDITION TO DOCUMENT >> delete: </b> delete: </p> delete: </td> delete: <td class="bottom"> delete: <h2> 8. IPv6 Provider Independent (PI) Assignments delete: </h2> delete: <p> To qualify for IPv6 PI address space, an organisation must:
a) not be an LIR IPv6 LIR;
b) demonstrate that it will be multihomed (for example by showing contracts of the peering partners)
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 will be assigned by the RIPE NCC directly to the End User organisations 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 there is a technical need is demonstrated and documented based on address usage, demanding this or because different routing requirements exist for additional assignments. usage justified. When possible, these further assignments will be made from an adjacent address block.

Assignments will be made allocated from a separate 'designated block' to facilitate filtering practices.

delete: <p> The PI assignment cannot be further assigned to other organisations. delete: </p> delete: </td> delete: </tr> delete: </tbody> delete: </table> delete: <p> delete: <a id="references" name="references"> delete: </a> delete: </p> delete: <table class="grid listing" id="edit-table2"> delete: <tbody> delete: <tr> delete: <td align="center" class="top"> delete: <b> ORIGINAL TEXT delete: </b> delete: </td> delete: <td class="top"> delete: <div align="center"> delete: <b> NEW TEXT delete: </b> delete: </div> delete: </td> delete: </tr> delete: <tr> delete: <td class="bottom"> delete: <h2> 8. References delete: </h2> delete: </td> delete: <td class="bottom"> delete: <h2> 9. References delete: </h2> delete: </td> delete: </tr> delete: </tbody> delete: </table> delete: <p> [RFC1715] "The H Ratio for Address Assignment Efficiency", C. Huitema. November 1994, delete: <a href="ftp://ftp.ripe.net/rfc/rfc1715.txt"> ftp://ftp.ripe.net/rfc/rfc1715.txt delete: </a> delete: </p> delete: <p> [RFC2026] "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3 IETF Experimental RFC delete: <a href="ftp://ftp.ripe.net/rfc/rfc2026.txt"> ftp://ftp.ripe.net/rfc/rfc2026.txt delete: </a> see Sec. 4.2.1 delete: </p> delete: <p> [RFC2462] "IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration", S. Thomson, T. Narten, 1998, delete: <a href="ftp://ftp.ripe.net/rfc/rfc2462.txt"> ftp://ftp.ripe.net/rfc/rfc2462.txt delete: </a> delete: </p> delete: <p> [RFC 4291] "IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture", R. Hinden, S. Deering. February 2006 delete: </p> delete: <p> delete: <a href="ftp://ftp.ripe.net/rfc/rfc4291.txt"> ftp://ftp.ripe.net/rfc/rfc4291.txt delete: </a> delete: </p> delete: <p> [RFC2928] "Initial IPv6 Sub-TLA ID Assignments", R. Hinden, S. Deering, R. Fink, T. Hain. September 2000 delete: <a href="ftp://ftp.ripe.net/rfc/rfc2928.txt"> ftp://ftp.ripe.net/rfc/rfc2928.txt delete: </a> delete: </p> delete: <p> [RFC3194] "The H-Density Ratio for Address Assignment Efficiency An Update on the H ratio", A. Durand, C. Huitema. November 2001, delete: <a href="ftp://ftp.ripe.net/rfc/rfc3194.txt"> ftp://ftp.ripe.net/rfc/rfc3194.txt delete: </a> delete: </p> delete: <p> delete: <a name="appendixA"> delete: </a> delete: </p> delete: <table class="grid listing" id="edit-table4"> delete: <tbody> delete: <tr> delete: <td align="center" class="top"> delete: <b> ORIGINAL TEXT delete: </b> delete: </td> delete: <td class="top"> delete: <div align="center"> delete: <b> NEW TEXT delete: </b> delete: </div> delete: </td> delete: </tr> delete: <tr> delete: <td class="bottom"> delete: <h2> 9. Appendix A: HD-Ratio delete: </h2> delete: </td> delete: <td class="bottom"> delete: <h2 class="style1"> 10. Appendix A: HD-Ratio delete: </h2> delete: </td> delete: </tr> delete: </tbody> delete: </table> delete: <p> The utilisation threshold T, expressed as a number of individual /56 prefixes to be allocated from IPv6 prefix P, can be calculated as: delete: </p> delete: <p> ((56-P)*HD) delete: </p> delete: <p> T = 2 delete: </p> delete: <p> Thus, the utilisation threshold for an organisation requesting subsequent allocation of IPv6 address block is specified as a function of the prefix size and target HD ratio. This utilisation refers to the use of /56s as an efficiency measurement unit, and does not refer to to the the utilisation of addresses within those End Sites. It is an address allocation utilisation ratio and not an address assignment utilisation ratio. delete: </p> delete: <p> In accordance with the recommendations of RFC 3194, this document adopts an HD-Ratio of 0.94 as the utilisation threshold for IPv6 address space allocations. delete: </p> delete: <p> The following table provides equivalent absolute and percentage address utilisation figures for IPv6 prefixes, corresponding to an HD-Ratio of 0.94. delete: </p> delete: <table class="invisible"> delete: <tbody> delete: <tr> delete: <td> delete: <p align="center"> delete: <b> Prefix delete: </b> delete: </p> delete: </td> delete: <td> delete: <p align="center"> delete: <b> Total /56s delete: </b> delete: </p> delete: </td> delete: <td> delete: <p align="center"> delete: <b> /56s HD 0.94 delete: </b> delete: </p> delete: </td> delete: <td> delete: <p align="center"> delete: <b> Util % delete: </b> delete: </p> delete: </td> delete: </tr> delete: <tr> delete: <td> delete: <p align="right"> 10 delete: </p> delete: </td> delete: <td> delete: <p align="right"> 70368744177664 delete: </p> delete: </td> delete: <td> delete: <p align="right"> 10388121308479 delete: </p> delete: </td> delete: <td> delete: <p align="right"> 14.76 delete: </p> delete: </td> delete: </tr> delete: <tr> delete: <td> delete: <p align="right"> 11 delete: </p> delete: </td> delete: <td> delete: <p align="right"> 35184372088832 delete: </p> delete: </td> delete: <td> delete: <p align="right"> 5414630391777 delete: </p> delete: </td> delete: <td> delete: <p align="right"> 15.39 delete: </p> delete: </td> delete: </tr> delete: <tr> delete: <td> delete: <p align="right"> 12 delete: </p> delete: </td> delete: <td> delete: <p align="right"> 17592186044416 delete: </p> delete: </td> delete: <td> delete: <p align="right"> 2822283395519 delete: </p> delete: </td> delete: <td> delete: <p align="right"> 16.04 delete: </p> delete: </td> delete: </tr> delete: <tr> delete: <td> delete: <p align="right"> 13 delete: </p> delete: </td> delete: <td> delete: <p align="right"> 8796093022208 delete: </p> delete: </td> delete: <td> delete: <p align="right"> 1471066903609 delete: </p> delete: </td> delete: <td> delete: <p align="right"> 16.72 delete: </p> delete: </td> delete: </tr> delete: <tr> delete: <td> delete: <p align="right"> 14 delete: </p> delete: </td> delete: <td> delete: <p align="right"> 4398046511104 delete: </p> delete: </td> delete: <td> delete: <p align="right"> 766768439460 delete: </p> delete: </td> delete: <td> delete: <p align="right"> 17.43 delete: </p> delete: </td> delete: </tr> delete: <tr> delete: <td> delete: <p align="right"> 15 delete: </p> delete: </td> delete: <td> delete: <p align="right"> 2199023255552 delete: </p> delete: </td> delete: <td> delete: <p align="right"> 399664922315 delete: </p> delete: </td> delete: <td> delete: <p align="right"> 18.17 delete: </p> delete: </td> delete: </tr> delete: <tr> delete: <td> delete: <p align="right"> 16 delete: </p> delete: </td> delete: <td> delete: <p align="right"> 1099511627776 delete: </p> delete: </td> delete: <td> delete: <p align="right"> 208318498661 delete: </p> delete: </td> delete: <td> delete: <p align="right"> 18.95 delete: </p> delete: </td> delete: </tr> delete: <tr> delete: <td> delete: <p align="right"> 17 delete: </p> delete: </td> delete: <td> delete: <p align="right"> 549755813888 delete: </p> delete: </td> delete: <td> delete: <p align="right"> 108582451102 delete: </p> delete: </td> delete: <td> delete: <p align="right"> 19.75 delete: </p> delete: </td> delete: </tr> delete: <tr> delete: <td> delete: <p align="right"> 18 delete: </p> delete: </td> delete: <td> delete: <p align="right"> 274877906944 delete: </p> delete: </td> delete: <td> delete: <p align="right"> 56596743751 delete: </p> delete: </td> delete: <td> delete: <p align="right"> 20.59 delete: </p> delete: </td> delete: </tr> delete: <tr> delete: <td> delete: <p align="right"> 19 delete: </p> delete: </td> delete: <td> delete: <p align="right"> 137438953472 delete: </p> delete: </td> delete: <td> delete: <p align="right"> 29500083768 delete: </p> delete: </td> delete: <td> delete: <p align="right"> 21.46 delete: </p> delete: </td> delete: </tr> delete: <tr> delete: <td> delete: <p align="right"> 20 delete: </p> delete: </td> delete: <td> delete: <p align="right"> 68719476736 delete: </p> delete: </td> delete: <td> delete: <p align="right"> 15376413635 delete: </p> delete: </td> delete: <td> delete: <p align="right"> 22.38 delete: </p> delete: </td> delete: </tr> delete: <tr> delete: <td> delete: <p align="right"> 21 delete: </p> delete: </td> delete: <td> delete: <p align="right"> 34359738368 delete: </p> delete: </td> delete: <td> delete: <p align="right"> 8014692369 delete: </p> delete: </td> delete: <td> delete: <p align="right"> 23.33 delete: </p> delete: </td> delete: </tr> delete: <tr> delete: <td> delete: <p align="right"> 22 delete: </p> delete: </td> delete: <td> delete: <p align="right"> 17179869184 delete: </p> delete: </td> delete: <td> delete: <p align="right"> 4177521189 delete: </p> delete: </td> delete: <td> delete: <p align="right"> 24.32 delete: </p> delete: </td> delete: </tr> delete: <tr> delete: <td> delete: <p align="right"> 23 delete: </p> delete: </td> delete: <td> delete: <p align="right"> 8589934592 delete: </p> delete: </td> delete: <td> delete: <p align="right"> 2177461403 delete: </p> delete: </td> delete: <td> delete: <p align="right"> 25.35 delete: </p> delete: </td> delete: </tr> delete: <tr> delete: <td> delete: <p align="right"> 24 delete: </p> delete: </td> delete: <td> delete: <p align="right"> 4294967296 delete: </p> delete: </td> delete: <td> delete: <p align="right"> 1134964479 delete: </p> delete: </td> delete: <td> delete: <p align="right"> 26.43 delete: </p> delete: </td> delete: </tr> delete: <tr> delete: <td> delete: <p align="right"> 25 delete: </p> delete: </td> delete: <td> delete: <p align="right"> 2147483648 delete: </p> delete: </td> delete: <td> delete: <p align="right"> 591580804 delete: </p> delete: </td> delete: <td> delete: <p align="right"> 27.55 delete: </p> delete: </td> delete: </tr> delete: <tr> delete: <td> delete: <p align="right"> 26 delete: </p> delete: </td> delete: <td> delete: <p align="right"> 1073741824 delete: </p> delete: </td> delete: <td> delete: <p align="right"> 308351367 delete: </p> delete: </td> delete: <td> delete: <p align="right"> 28.72 delete: </p> delete: </td> delete: </tr> delete: <tr> delete: <td> delete: <p align="right"> 27 delete: </p> delete: </td> delete: <td> delete: <p align="right"> 536870912 delete: </p> delete: </td> delete: <td> delete: <p align="right"> 160722871 delete: </p> delete: </td> delete: <td> delete: <p align="right"> 29.94 delete: </p> delete: </td> delete: </tr> delete: <tr> delete: <td> delete: <p align="right"> 28 delete: </p> delete: </td> delete: <td> delete: <p align="right"> 268435456 delete: </p> delete: </td> delete: <td> delete: <p align="right"> 83774045 delete: </p> delete: </td> delete: <td> delete: <p align="right"> 31.21 delete: </p> delete: </td> delete: </tr> delete: <tr> delete: <td> delete: <p align="right"> 29 delete: </p> delete: </td> delete: <td> delete: <p align="right"> 134217728 delete: </p> delete: </td> delete: <td> delete: <p align="right"> 43665787 delete: </p> delete: </td> delete: <td> delete: <p align="right"> 32.53 delete: </p> delete: </td> delete: </tr> delete: <tr> delete: <td> delete: <p align="right"> 30 delete: </p> delete: </td> delete: <td> delete: <p align="right"> 67108864 delete: </p> delete: </td> delete: <td> delete: <p align="right"> 22760044 delete: </p> delete: </td> delete: <td> delete: <p align="right"> 33.92 delete: </p> delete: </td> delete: </tr> delete: <tr> delete: <td> delete: <p align="right"> 31 delete: </p> delete: </td> delete: <td> delete: <p align="right"> 33554432 delete: </p> delete: </td> delete: <td> delete: <p align="right"> 11863283 delete: </p> delete: </td> delete: <td> delete: <p align="right"> 35.36 delete: </p> delete: </td> delete: </tr> delete: <tr> delete: <td> delete: <p align="right"> 32 delete: </p> delete: </td> delete: <td> delete: <p align="right"> 16777216 delete: </p> delete: </td> delete: <td> delete: <p align="right"> 6183533 delete: </p> delete: </td> delete: <td> delete: <p align="right"> 36.86 delete: </p> delete: </td> delete: </tr> delete: </tbody> delete: </table> delete: <p> delete: <a name="appendixB"> delete: </a> delete: </p> delete: <table class="grid listing" id="edit-table5"> delete: <tbody> delete: <tr> delete: <td align="center" class="top"> delete: <b> ORIGINAL TEXT delete: </b> delete: </td> delete: <td class="top"> delete: <div align="center"> delete: <b> NEW TEXT delete: </b> delete: </div> delete: </td> delete: </tr> delete: <tr> delete: <td class="bottom"> delete: <h2> 10. Appendix B: Background information delete: </h2> delete: <a id="background" name="background"> delete: </a> delete: <h3> 10.1. Background delete: </h3> delete: </td> delete: <td class="bottom"> delete: <h2 class="style1"> 11. Appendix B: Background information delete: </h2> delete: <span class="style1"> delete: <a id="background2" name="background"> delete: </a> delete: </span> delete: <h3 class="style1"> 11.1. Background delete: </h3> delete: </td> delete: </tr> delete: </tbody> delete: </table> delete: <p> The impetus for revising the 1999 provisional IPv6 policy started with the APNIC meeting held in Taiwan in August 2001. Follow-on discussions were held at the October 2001 RIPE and ARIN meetings. During these meetings, the participants recognised an urgent need for more detailed, complete policies. One result of the meetings was the establishment of a single mailing list to discuss a revised policy together with a desire to develop a general policy that all RIRs could use. This document does not provide details of individual discussions that lead to policies described in this document; detailed information can be found in the individual meeting minutes at the www.apnic.net, www.arin.net, and www.ripe.net web sites. delete: </p> delete: <p> In September 2002 at the RIPE 43 Meeting in Rhodes, Greece, the RIPE community approved the policy allowing Internet experiments to receive temporary assignments. As a result, Section 6 was added to this document in January 2003. delete: </p> delete: <p> delete: <a name="why_joint_policy"> delete: </a> delete: </p> delete: <table class="grid listing" id="edit-table6"> delete: <tbody> delete: <tr> delete: <td align="center" class="top"> delete: <b> ORIGINAL TEXT delete: </b> delete: </td> delete: <td class="top"> delete: <div align="center"> delete: <b> NEW TEXT delete: </b> delete: </div> delete: </td> delete: </tr> delete: <tr> delete: <td class="bottom"> delete: <h3> 10.2. Why a joint policy delete: </h3> delete: </td> delete: <td class="bottom"> delete: <h3 class="style1"> 11.2. Why a joint policy delete: </h3> delete: </td> delete: </tr> delete: </tbody> delete: </table> delete: <p> IPv6 addresses are a public resource that must be managed with consideration to the long-term interests of the Internet community. Although regional registries adopt allocation policies according to their own internal processes, address policies should largely be uniform across registries. Having significantly varying policies in different regions is undesirable because it can lead to situations where "registry shopping" can occur as requesting organisations request addresses from the registry that has the most favorable policy for their particular desires. This can lead to the policies in one region undermining the efforts of registries in other regions with regards to prudent stewardship of the address space. In cases where regional variations from the policy are deemed necessary, the preferred approach is to raise the issue in the other regional registries in order to develop a consensus approach that all registries can support. delete: </p> delete: <p> delete: <a name="size_ipv6_space"> delete: </a> delete: </p> delete: <table class="grid listing" id="edit-table7"> delete: <tbody> delete: <tr> delete: <td align="center" class="top"> delete: <b> ORIGINAL TEXT delete: </b> delete: </td> delete: <td class="top"> delete: <div align="center"> delete: <b> NEW TEXT delete: </b> delete: </div> delete: </td> delete: </tr> delete: <tr> delete: <td class="bottom"> delete: <h3> 10.3. The size of IPv6's address space delete: </h3> delete: </td> delete: <td class="bottom"> delete: <h3 class="style1"> 11.3. The size of IPv6's address space delete: </h3> delete: </td> delete: </tr> delete: </tbody> delete: </table> delete: <p> Compared to IPv4, IPv6 has a seemingly endless amount of address space. While superficially true, short-sighted and wasteful allocation policies could also result in the adoption of practices that lead to premature exhaustion of the address space. delete: </p> delete: <p> It should be noted that the 128-bit address space is divided into three logical parts, with the usage of each component managed differently. The rightmost 64 bits, the Interface Identifier [RFC4291], will often be a globally unique IEEE identifier (e.g., mac address). Although an "inefficient" way to use the Interface Identifier field from the perspective of maximizing the number of addressable nodes, the numbering scheme was explicitly chosen to simplify Stateless Address Autoconfiguration [ delete: <a href="#references"> RFC2462 delete: </a> ]. delete: </p> delete: <p> The middle bits of an address indicate the subnet ID. This field may often be inefficiently utilised, but the operational benefits of a consistent width subnet field were deemed to be outweigh the drawbacks. This is a variable length field, determined by each LIR's local assignment policy. delete: </p> delete: <p> delete: <a name="ack" data-val="c60d8c3d36f6d062befd7f2f9cfc03b1" data-linktype="internal"> delete: </a> delete: </p> delete: <table class="grid listing" id="edit-table8"> delete: <tbody> delete: <tr> delete: <td align="center" class="top"> delete: <b> ORIGINAL TEXT delete: </b> delete: </td> delete: <td class="top"> delete: <div align="center"> delete: <b> NEW TEXT delete: </b> delete: </div> delete: </td> delete: </tr> delete: <tr> delete: <td class="bottom"> delete: <h3> 10.4. Acknowledgment delete: </h3> delete: </td> delete: <td class="bottom"> delete: <h3 class="style1"> 11.4. Acknowledgment delete: </h3> delete: </td> delete: </tr> delete: </tbody> delete: </table> delete: <p> The initial version of this document was produced by the JPNIC IPv6 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. delete: </p> delete: <p> An editing team was then organised 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 the RIPE IPv6 Working Group). delete: </p> delete: <p> The editing team would like to acknowledge the contributions to this document of Takashi Arano, John Crain, Steve Deering, Gert Doering, Kosuke Ito, Richard Jimmerson, David Kessens, Mirjam Kuehne, Anne Lord, Jun Murai, Paul Mylotte, Thomas Narten, Ray Plzak, Dave Pratt, Stuart Prevost, Barbara Roseman, Gerard Ross, Paul Wilson, Cathy Wittbrodt and Wilfried Woeber. delete: </p> delete: <p> The final editing of the initial version of this document was done by Thomas Narten. delete: </p>
Get Involved

The Address Policy Working Group develops policies relating to the allocation and registration of Internet number resources (IPv4 and IPv6 addresses and ASNs) by the RIPE NCC and its members. Anyone with an interest in Internet numbering issues is welcome to observe, participate and contribute to the WG. To post a message to the list, send an email to [email protected] Please note that only subscribers can post messages.

RIPE Forum

The RIPE Forum is an additional way to participate in RIPE community mailing list discussions using a web-based interface rather than an email client.

Check out the forum

Please contact if you need more information.

Stay up to date!

Follow @PDO_RIPE_NCC on Twitter.