[address-policy-wg] PA/PI unification IPv6 Address Space

Hi,

On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 02:57:45PM +0200, Daniel Stolpe wrote:
> > [PA/PI unification proposal]
>
> > For IPv6, it's still sitting on my lap, and I need to restart the process -
> > thanks for the reminder.
> 
> Just let us know if you need volonteers or cheering.

Since Sander already mentioned it, I now need to write down what I had in
mind :-)

The original proposal (text appended below) received quite positive feedback,
so I think we want to go ahead with that.

What is necessary next is to actually write this up in the form of a RIPE
policy document - and since the secondary effects of this change are
quite radical, I think it leads to "write a new policy document for the
new IPv6 address policy in RIPE, after that change, taking into account
most of the questions that have come up" (like: what are the rules for
a LIR to receive multiple "blocks of addresses"?).

I can't seem to find enough "undisturbed time" to actually get going with
this, so my idea was to form a *small* editorial team, maybe 3-5 people,
who would work together with Sander, me and Emilio to write this new
policy document (you write, we review :) ), and if we all agree that 
"yes, this is good!" it will be presented as a formal policy proposal 
to the WG, possibly leading to further tweaks of the text.

The group writing this should be people that have had first-hand experience
with address requests, customer confusion about PA and PI, with the RIPE
policy process - and who have nerves of steel, to actually fight for it
in the ensueing arguments on the list...


So... volunteers? :-)

Gert Doering
        -- APWG chair

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Motivation: why?
----------------
- PA and PI are just different labels for "IPv6 addresses"
  ... but with different strings attached:
   - PI must not be used for 3rd party assignments (problem for hosting 
     providers)
   - only single PA allocation for LIRs possible, even if multiple 
     independent networks exist
- network structure and operation is very different these days than
  at the time where the PA/PI distinction was made. The boundaries between 
  networks, different operators and different services are not as clear 
  as they used to be...
- the classic distinction 
     "PA is for ISPs and their access customers"
     "PI is for enterprises that do not do ISP-like business" 
  has been overcome by reality, and there are no longer clear borders between 
  "ISP", "enterprise" and "end-customer" networks

- Network addresses are for *numbering network devices*. Limiting what 
  someone is allowed to do with certain addresses creates confusion. 
  Constantly having to tweak policy to work around this is the wrong 
  solution.


Goals and Caveats
-----------------
- encourage IPv6 deployment
- be flexible enough to accommodate both typical and non-typical network- 
  and business models
- do not encourage assignment of /64 or single addresses to end users
- do not encourage excessive routing table growth
- encourage proper documentation and discourage lying to the RIPE NCC to 
  wiggle around policy restrictions


The Proposal
------------
- abandon distinction between PA (allocation) and PI (assignment)
- everything is just "numbers"
- RIPE NCC hands out "block(s) of numbers" to "users of numbers"
- see below for answers on the fine print...


Who get's address space?
------------------------
- existing model is kept: LIRs as distribution point for address space
- either to "the LIR organization" - classic model: "LIR is part of the Internet Provider business"
- or via the LIR to "the entity that wants to use the space and take responsibility for it" (sponsoring LIR), keeping the contractual requirements of 2007-01
- "Direct Assignment Users" members could still be possible, but "every NCC member is an LIR" would simplify things further (see "Costs" section)


Amount of space per "block of numbers"?
---------------------------------------
- /48 (or larger with justification) by default
- /32.../29 (or larger with justification) allowed when planning to 
  assign to 3rd parties
- multiple "blocks of numbers" to or via a single LIR allowed and expected 
  to be a frequently seen usage case


Allocation from well-known ranges for anything that people might want to 
treat specially in their routing policy (former "special case" and PI 
policies):
- IXP
- Root DNS
- Anycast DNS
- /33.../48 blocks


Cost?
-----
- determined by AGM, but we can discuss models here and provide 
  recommendations to AGM and NCC board, e.g.:
- base cost per year per LIR
- yearly recurring cost "per block of numbers", independent of size(!),
  reflecting the cost of handling the address space request, documentation, 
  RIPE database, etc., which increase if you need "many blocks"


Multiple blocks per LIR?
------------------------
- since there would no longer be any difference between PA and PI, "more 
  than one block going to a single LIR" would be a typical case - so it 
  needs to be permitted
- "get any number of blocks that people are asking for" is not likely to 
  get consensus due to pressure on the routing system
- proposal for compromise: 
     ``one "block of numbers" per "network"''
- needs workable definition for "network":
    - interconnected network
    - operated by the same entity
    - operated as a layer 3 network
    - be flexible in allowing multiple blocks, but don't *require* anyone 
      to actually ask for multiple number blocks if they are happy with 
      using the same address block for multiple networks/sites/...

- problem cases to keep in mind, leading to this definition
    - ISPs providing L3 services on top of other ISPs' Layer 2 infrastructure
    - single LIRs providing addresses to two independent Layer 3 networks 
      that are not directly connected - e.g. due to political 
      (commercial/NREN), legal or geographical reasons
    - "classical PI" type connections - end users with independent numbers
    - Multiple L3 providers providing address space to a single user must 
      be allowed (multi-homing, special-purpose networks, etc.)

-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444            USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 306 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20130627/b3d77810/attachment.sig>