Policy Active Proposals

Ref. Name:
AFPUB-2018-V6-003-DRAFT02

Versions: 2.0 

Status:  Ratified - Pending Implementation

Obsoletes: CPM 3.0 - The Policy Development (PDP)

Author:

Jordi Palet Martinez

jordi.palet at theipv6company.com

The IPv6 Company

 

Amends: CPM art 6.8
Submitted:
11 May 2018

Summary of the problem being addressed by this proposal

The actual policy text was done before the IPv6 deployment was initiated, and now we have the experience of new cases of big IPv6 deployments, even government networks.

It is also necessary to align the text of the subsequent allocations, in order to be coherent and not discriminate LIRs with existing allocations.

Furthermore, historically, the process for requesting the default initial IPv6 assignment (/32 block) was very easy and, because many people were used thinking "the IPv4 way," they believed this would be large enough for their networks.

For this reason, many ISPs don't prepare a proper addressing plan before requesting the proper prefix for the long-term deployment of their IPv6 network.

As a result, there are many cases —and quite possibly the number of such cases will increase in the coming months— where, as a result of the actual policy, the ISP will be forced to return the prefix initially they originally received, submit a new initial request, and renumber their existing deployment.

This is typically the case in the early stages of IPv6 deployment, when a serious, long-term addressing plan is prepared, even though there might have been an initial deployment of IPv6 in part of the network, such as the core, pilot projects, initial testing, etc. However, this situation can also present itself in more advanced stages of deployment, where obviously the idea is to complete the deployment without restrictions, renumbering, or serious changes to the addressing plan.

This could also be the case where the initial allocation occurred many years ago, at the time when it was free and easy to simply "request" an IPv6 prefix, without any study of the deployment and addressing plan. Several years may have gone by and the size of the network may have changed substantially, technical knowledge on how to use IPv6 has evolved, there are new technologies based on IPv6 (IoT, Smart Cities, ...), etc.

 

Revision History

Date

Details

28 March 2018

Version 1: AFPUB-2018-V6-003-DRAFT01

Initial Draft Posted to rpd.

11 May 2018

Version 2: AFPUB-2018-V6-003-DRAFT02

Slight updates for the last call version after AFRINIC28 face to face discussions.

 

References

Similar text exists and/or has been proposed in related policy documents at other RIR communities.

Summary of the Problem Being Addressed by this Policy Proposal

Since this policy was developed, IPv6 deployment has evolved and also some parts of the policy have been changed, which led to several inconsistencies in the actual text, even wrong references to other text sections.

In addition to ironing out such inconsistencies, this proposal updates an important reference to a very recent document to make it easier to understand how LIRs can assign IPv6 addresses to their users.

This proposal does not imply any changes in how the actual policy is applied. Instead, the proposed changes are simply clarifications or involve correcting errors and updating references to avoid potential misinterpretations.

IPv4 exhaustion in other regions combined with other factors has imposed huge pressure on the AFRINIC IPv4 pool with requests for large IPv4 blocks, with very little IPv6 deployment. The pressure on the AFRINIC IPv4 pool has led to some policy proposals to reserve some blocks for certain sub-communities.

 

Details
  • Ref. Name:AFPUB-2018-V6-001-DRAFT01
  • Submitted:11 March 2018
  • Versions: 1.0
  • Amends: CPM art 6.0
  • Obsoletes:
  • Author:
    - Jordi Palet Martinez, jordi.palet[at]theipv6company.com  The IPv6 Company

Revision History

Date Details

14 March 2018

Version 1: AFPUB-2018-V6-001-DRAFT01

Initial Draft Posted to rpd

 

Page 10 of 19