[arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2010-8: Rework of IPv6 assignment criteria

[Member Services]

Draft Policy 2010-8
Rework of IPv6 assignment criteria

On 18 February 2010 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) selected "Rework of
IPv6 assignment criteria" as a draft policy for adoption discussion on
the PPML and at the Public Policy Meeting in Toronto in April.

The draft was developed by the AC from policy proposal "107. Rework of
IPv6 assignment criteria". Per the Policy Development Process the AC
submitted text to ARIN for a staff and legal assessment prior to its
selection as a draft policy. Below the draft policy is the ARIN staff
and legal assessment, followed by the text that was submitted by the AC.

Draft Policy 2010-8 is below and can be found at:
https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2010_8.htm

You are encouraged to discuss Draft Policy 2010-8 on the PPML prior to
the April Public Policy Meeting. Both the discussion on the list and
at the meeting will be used by the ARIN Advisory Council to determine
the community consensus for adopting this as policy.

The ARIN Policy Development Process can be found at:
https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html

Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at:
https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html

Regards,

Member Services
American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)


## * ##


Draft Policy 2010-8
Rework of IPv6 assignment criteria

Version/Date: 23 February 2010

Policy statement:

6.5.8. Initial assignments

6.5.8.1. Initial assignment size

Organizations that meet at least one of the following criteria are
eligible to receive a minimum assignment of /48. Requests for larger
initial assignments, reasonably justified with supporting documentation,
will be evaluated based on the number of sites and the number of subnets
needed to support a site.

Organizations may request up to a /48 for each site in their network,
with the overall allocation rounded up to the next whole prefix only as
necessary. A subnet plan demonstrating a utilization of 33,689 or more
subnets within a site is necessary to justify an additional /48 for any
individual site, beyond this the 0.94 HD-Ratio metric of the number of
subnets is used.

All assignments shall be made from distinctly identified prefixes, with
each assignment receiving a reservation for growth of at least a /44.
Such reservations are not guaranteed and ARIN, at its discretion, may
assign them to other organizations at any time.

Note: Organizations with multiple sites are encouraged to consider the
use /56s for smaller satellite sites.

6.5.8.2. Criteria for initial assignment to Internet connected end-users

Organizations may justify an initial assignment for connecting their own
network to the IPv6 Internet, with an intent to provide global
reachability for the assignment within 12 months, and for addressing
devices directly attached to their network infrastructure, by meeting
one of the following additional criteria:

a. Having a previously justified IPv4 end-user assignment from ARIN or
one of its predecessor registries, or;

b. Currently being IPv6 Multihomed or immediately becoming IPv6
Multihomed and using an assigned valid global AS number, or;

c. By providing a reasonable technical justification indicating why
other IPv6 addresses from an ISP or other LIR are unsuitable and a plan
detailing the utilization of sites and subnets for one, two and five
year periods.

Examples of justifications for why addresses from an ISP or other LIR
may be unsuitable include, but are not limited to:

• An organization that operates infrastructure critical to life safety
or the functioning of society, has justification based on the fact that
renumbering would have a broader than expected impact than simply the
number of hosts involved. These would include; hospitals, fire fighting,
police, emergency response, power or energy distribution, water or waste
treatment, traffic management and control, etc…
• Regardless of the number of hosts involved, an organization has
justification if renumbering would affect 1000 or more individuals
either internal or external to the organization.

6.5.8.3 Criteria for initial assignment to non-connected networks

Organizations may justify an initial assignment for operating their own
non-connected IPv6 network and for addressing devices directly attached
to their network infrastructure, by meeting one of the following
additional criteria:

a. Having a previously justified IPv4 end-users assignment from ARIN or
one of its predecessor registries, or;

b. By providing a reasonable technical justification indicating why an
assignment for a non-connected networks is necessary, including the
intended purpose for the assignment, and describing the network
infrastructure the assignment will be used to support. Justification
must include why Unique Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses (ULA) is unsuitable
and a plan detailing the utilization of sites and subnets for one, two
and five year periods.

Examples of justifications for why ULA may be unsuitable include, but
are not limited to:

• The need for authoritative delegation of reverse DNS, including
documentation way this is necessary.
• The need for documented uniqueness, beyond the statistical uniqueness
provided by ULA, including documentation way this is necessary.
• A documented need to connect with other networks connected to or not
connected to the Internet

NOTE: Organizations are encouraged to consider the use of ULA, for
non-connected networks, see RFC 4193 for details.

6.5.8.4 Criteria for initial assignment to Community Networks

Organizations may justify an initial assignment for operating a
Community Network by documenting that they meet the criteria specified
in section 2.11. A Community Network is considered a single site and a
larger initial assignment may only be justified based on the number of
subnets necessary to serve the community in question.

6.5.9. Subsequent assignments

Subsequent assignments may be made when the need for additional sites or
subnets are justified with reasonable supporting documentation. When
possible, subsequent assignments will be made from an adjacent address
block.

Organizations may request up to a /48 for each site in their network,
with the overall allocation rounded up to the next whole prefix only as
necessary. A subnet plan demonstrating a utilization of 33,689 or more
subnets within a site is necessary to justify an additional /48 for any
individual site, beyond this the 0.94 HD-Ratio metric of the number of
subnets is used.

Note: Organizations with multiple sites are encouraged to consider the
use /56s for smaller satellite sites.

Delete current 6.5.9 Community Network Assignments as it is incorporated
in 6.5.8.4.

Rationale:

This proposal provides a complete rework of the IPv6 end-user assignment
criteria, removing the dependency on IPv4 policy, while maintaining many
of the basic concepts contained in the current policies. The order of
the subsections of 6.5.8 was rearranged moving the initial assignment
size to 6.5.8.1 and subsequent assignments to 6.5.9. This will
facilitate adding future criteria without additional renumbering of
current policies.

The initial assignment criteria include the following general concepts:

• When Internet connectivity is use to justify resources it is implied
the resources should be advertised to the Internet, within some
reasonable time frame after they are received.
• IPv4 resources may be use to justify the need for IPv6 resources. •
Internet multihoming is sufficient justification for an end-user
assignment in and of itself.
• Other Internet connected end-users must justify why an ISP or LIR
assignment is not sufficient for their needs.
• Non-connected networks must describe the purpose and network
infrastructure the assignment will be supporting, including why ULA is
not sufficient for their needs.
• Organizations with multiple sites are allowed to request a /48 for
each site, with a suggestion to use /56s for smaller sites.
• While HD-Ratio is not completely eliminated it really only applies to
situations that an individual site of an organization needs more that a /48.
• Community networks are assumed to justify an assignment in and of
themselves, but they should be considered a single site, otherwise they
should get an ISP allocation.

Timetable for implementation: Immediate


#####


STAFF ASSESSMENT

Proposal: Rework of IPv6 assignment criteria
Proposal Version (Date): 1 Feb 2010

Date of Assessment:  12 Feb 2010


1.	Proposal Summary (Staff Understanding)

ARIN staff understands this policy establishes fresh criteria for
end-users requesting /48 and larger assignments for their networks based
on the number of sites and number of subnets needed per site.  It allows
almost all requestors to receive a /48 for a site by meeting one of the
following three criteria: have an IPv4 end user assignment OR be
multi-homed OR provide technical justification why upstream space will
not suffice and a plan detailing utilization for one, two, and five
years out. In addition, it allows non-connected (private) networks to
get an IPv6 assignment from ARIN.  Finally, it lowers the threshold for
community networks by removing the existing criteria for an initial
assignment.

2. Comments

A. ARIN Staff Comments

•	The policy adds very specific criteria for assigning a site more than
a /48. Having this specific criteria lay out such clear rules makes it
easier for both requesters and ARIN staff to understand and provides the
type of necessary details that have been missing from the current
policy.  (Staff understands that this policy allows an organization to
define what a site is.)
•	6.5.8.2 relaxes the current qualification criteria for a /48 per site
and opens up the policy to pretty much everyone. This should
significantly increase the number of assignments ARIN makes each year.

	B. ARIN General Counsel

“This proposal poses no significant legal issues.”


3. Resource Impact

This policy would have minimal resource impact.  It is estimated that
implementation would occur within 3 months after ratification by the
ARIN Board of Trustees. The following would be needed in order to implement:

•	Changes to guidelines
•	May require new template
•	Staff training


4. Proposal Text

6.5.8. Initial assignments
6.5.8.1. Initial assignment size
Organizations that meet at least one of the following criteria are
eligible to receive a minimum assignment of /48. Requests for larger
initial assignments, reasonably justified with supporting documentation,
will be evaluated based on the number of sites and the number of subnets
needed to support a site.
Organizations may request up to a /48 for each site in their network,
with the overall allocation rounded up to the next whole prefix only as
necessary. A subnet plan demonstrating a utilization of 33,689 or more
subnets within a site is necessary to justify an additional /48 for any
individual site, beyond this the 0.94 HD-Ratio metric of the number of
subnets is used.
All assignments shall be made from distinctly identified prefixes, with
each assignment receiving a reservation for growth of at least a /44.
Such reservations are not guaranteed and ARIN, at its discretion, may
assign them to other organizations at any time.
Note: Organizations with multiple sites are encouraged to consider the
use /56s for smaller satellite sites.
6.5.8.2. Criteria for initial assignment to Internet connected end-users
Organizations may justify an initial assignment for connecting their own
network to the IPv6 Internet, with an intent to provide global
reachability for the assignment within 12 months, and for addressing
devices directly attached to their network infrastructure, by meeting
one of the following additional criteria:
a. Having a previously justified IPv4 end-user assignment from ARIN or
one of its predecessor registries, or;
b. Currently being IPv6 Multihomed or immediately becoming IPv6
Multihomed and using an assigned valid global AS number, or;
c. By providing a reasonable technical justification indicating why
other IPv6 addresses from an ISP or other LIR are unsuitable and a plan
detailing the utilization of sites and subnets for one, two and five
year periods.
Examples of justifications for why addresses from an ISP or other LIR
may be unsuitable include, but are not limited to:
•	An organization that operates infrastructure critical to life safety
or the functioning of society, has justification based on the fact that
renumbering would have a broader than expected impact than simply the
number of hosts involved. These would include; hospitals, fire
fighting, police, emergency response, power or energy distribution,
water or waste treatment, traffic management and control, etc...
•	Regardless of the number of hosts involved, an organization has
justification if renumbering would affect 1000 or more individuals
either internal or external to the organization.
6.5.8.3 Criteria for initial assignment to non-connected networks
Organizations may justify an initial assignment for operating their own
non-connected IPv6 network and for addressing devices directly attached
to their network infrastructure, by meeting one of the following
additional criteria:
a. Having a previously justified IPv4 end-users assignment from ARIN or
one of its predecessor registries, or;
b. By providing a reasonable technical justification indicating why an
assignment for a non-connected networks is necessary, including the
intended purpose for the assignment, and describing the network
infrastructure the assignment will be used to support. Justification
must include why Unique Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses (ULA) is unsuitable
and a plan detailing the utilization of sites and subnets for one, two
and five year periods.
Examples of justifications for why ULA may be unsuitable include, but
are not limited to:
•	The need for authoritative delegation of reverse DNS, including
documentation way this is necessary.
•	The need for documented uniqueness, beyond the statistical uniqueness
provided by ULA, including documentation way this is necessary.
•	A documented need to connect with other networks connected to or not
connected to the Internet
NOTE: Organizations are encouraged to consider the use of ULA, for
non-connected networks, see RFC 4193 for details.
6.5.8.4 Criteria for initial assignment to Community Networks
Organizations may justify an initial assignment for operating a
Community Network by documenting that they meet the criteria specified
in section 2.11. A Community Network is considered a single site and a
larger initial assignment may only be justified based on the number of
subnets necessary to serve the community in question.
6.5.9. Subsequent assignments
Subsequent assignments may be made when the need for additional sites or
subnets are justified with reasonable supporting documentation. When
possible, subsequent assignments will be made from an adjacent address
block.
Organizations may request up to a /48 for each site in their network,
with the overall allocation rounded up to the next whole prefix only as
necessary. A subnet plan demonstrating a utilization of 33,689 or more
subnets within a site is necessary to justify an additional /48 for any
individual site, beyond this the 0.94 HD-Ratio metric of the number of
subnets is used.
Note: Organizations with multiple sites are encouraged to consider the
use /56s for smaller satellite sites.
Delete current 6.5.9 Community Network Assignments as it is incorporated
in 6.5.8.4.


Rationale:
This proposal provides a complete rework of the IPv6 end-user assignment
criteria, removing the dependency on IPv4 policy, while maintaining many
of the basic concepts contained in the current policies. The order of
the subsections of 6.5.8 was rearranged moving the initial assignment
size to 6.5.8.1 and subsequent assignments to 6.5.9. This will
facilitate adding future criteria without additional renumbering of
current policies.
The initial assignment criteria include the following general concepts:
•	When Internet connectivity is use to justify resources it is implied
the resources should be advertised to the Internet, within some
reasonable time frame after they are received.
•	IPv4 resources may be use to justify the need for IPv6 resources.
•	Internet multihoming is sufficient justification for an end-user
assignment in and of itself.
•	Other Internet connected end-users must justify why an ISP or LIR
assignment is not sufficient for their needs.
•	Non-connected networks must describe the purpose and network
infrastructure the assignment will be supporting, including why ULA is
not sufficient for their needs.
•	Organizations with multiple sites are allowed to request a /48 for
each site, with a suggestion to use /56s for smaller sites.
•	While HD-Ratio is not completely eliminated it really only applies to
situations that an individual site of an organization needs more that a /48.
•	Community networks are assumed to justify an assignment in and of
themselves, but they should be considered a single site, otherwise they
should get an ISP allocation.