Summary of recent IPv6 discussions within APNIC and RIPE

[Thomas Narten]

Here is a summary of recent activity related to IPv6 addressing
policy. Credit goes to Richard Jimmerson for putting it together with
help from RIPE and APNIC.

This will serve as background for the upcoming v6 WG meeting in Miami,
where these topics will be discussed. 

Thomas (with WG Chair hat in place)

***** APNIC *****

There was a joint IPv6/Policy session relating to iPv6 address policy
held at the last APNIC meeting.  During this session there were two
separate IPv6 policy proposals made.  The following day these two
policy proposals were merged.  There was consensus that many of the 
principles outlined in the proposal document were sound, but there 
was general agreement that further discussion was needed at the global 
level -- in particular, the initial allocation size from the RIRs.

There was consensus that the IPv6 bootstrap period should be extended 
until the next IPv6 policy is implemented, with the understanding that 
the next policy takes account of bootstrapping needs.

There was consensus to accept the proposal for APNIC to assign IPv6
address space to Internet exchanges.  The assignment size agreed upon
was a /64.

***** RIPE NCC *****

There were two separate sessions that covered the topic of IPv6
addressing policy -- 1) The IPv6/LIR joint session
                     2) The IPv6/LIR/EIX joint session

1) The IPv6/LIR joint session discussed the IPv6 policy proposal
language, summarized the discussions that took place at the APNIC
meeting, and reviewed a proposal submitted by Dave Pratt.

There were many similarities between these three offerings.  The group
seemed to agree on principles such as using the HD-ratio for checking
utilization, the fact current IPv4 utilization would be considered
when evaluating an initial request for IPv6 address space, and many
other points from the IPv6 proposal language, but objected to the
references to "slow start," as there was concern the minimum allocation
size may be too small and that LIRs would have to return to the RIR
too often.

One of the main points that was left open and identified as needed
further discussion was the initial allocation size from the RIR.  It
was agreed that this point and others would be best discussed on a 
global mailing list so the discussions of the three regions remained
in sync.

It was also decided that the RIRs should continue work on an interim
policy document with the help of the community while these discussions
are going on.  It was felt that even though there are still some open
issues, the new proposed policies are much better than what we have now.

2) The IPv6/LIR/EIX joint session discussed the proposed policy of
the RIPE NCC assigning IPv6 address space to exchange points.  There was
much discussion about what size to assign IXes (/64 or /48).  It was
argued some IXes may need more than a /64, so a /48 should be assigned
for purposes of administrative ease.  Many people supported this notion,
as almost every other type of "site" would receive a /48 anyway.

It was also observed that IXes may not even need space from the RIR
and that they could use link-local addresses.  It was countered that
link-local may not work because some exchange customers may want to
traceroute to one another.

The final consensus was that exchange points should receive their
IPv6 address space from a RIR.