Current Proposals - AFRINIC - Regional Internet Registry for Africa

IPv6 Initial Allocation Update (Draft 1)

: Last Modified on - 18 October 2020

Details
Proposal

Details

Ref. Name:
AFPUB-2018-V6-004-DRAFT01

Versions: 1.0

Status: Under Discussion

Author:

Jordi Palet Martinez,

jordi.palet[at]theipv6company.com

The IPv6 Company

Amends: CPM art 6.5

Submitted:
28 March 2018

Proposal

1.0 Summary of the Problem Being Addressed by this Policy 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.

2.0 Summary of how this proposal addresses the problem

Making sure that the policy text is aligned with a wider set of possible IPv6 deployment cases and facilitate the justification of the allocation size if a bigger address block (versus the default one) is requested.

Ensuring as well, that the subsequent IPv6 allocation policy is synchronized with the initial allocation one.

This proposal seeks to avoid unnecessary work for both parties: the ISP, who would be forced to renumber, and AFRINIC staff, who in any case would have to evaluate the new request and also provide a new prefix.

This is leading to a situation where, instead of preparing a proper numbering plan, an ISP may wish to avoid it by adjusting the size of the prefix it provides to its customers, which undoubtedly affects the proper deployment of IPv6 in the medium to long term.

3. Proposal

Article 6.5 of the CPM will be modified as follows:

Current

Proposed

6.5.1.1 Initial allocation criteria

To qualify for an initial allocation of IPv6 address space, an organization must:

Be an LIR;
Not be an end site;
Show a detailed plan to provide IPv6 connectivity to organizations in the AFRINIC region.
Show a reasonable plan for making /48 IPv6 assignments to end sites in the AFRINIC region within twelve months.

6.5.1.1 Initial allocation criteria

To qualify for an initial allocation of IPv6 address space, an organization must:

Be an LIR;
Show a detailed plan to provide IPv6 connectivity/services to other organizations/end-users or self-owned/related departments/entities/sites in the AFRINIC region.
Show a reasonable plan for making /48 IPv6 assignments to end sites in the AFRINIC region within twelve months.
Announce the allocated block in the Internet inter-domain routing system, with the minimum possible level of disaggregation, within a period no longer than 12 months.

6.5.1.2 Initial allocation size

Organizations that meet the initial allocation criteria are eligible to receive a minimum allocation of /32.

Organizations 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 organization's infrastructure.

6.5.1.2 Initial allocation size

Organizations that meet the initial allocation criteria are eligible to receive a minimum allocation of /32.

Organizations may qualify for an initial allocation larger than /32 by submitting documentation that justifies the request. If so, the allocation size will be based on the number of existing users and the extent of the organization's infrastructure

In this case, the initial allocation shall be based on the space needed to serve the organization's clients, number of users, extent of its infrastructure, hierarchical and/or geographic structure, infrastructure segmentation for security or other reasons, and the longevity anticipated for the initial allocation.

[Introduce a new clause 6.5.1.3]

6.5.1.3. Rectifying the size of initial allocations

During IPv6 deployment, if an organization finds that the size of the initial allocation it requested no longer satisfies its needs, the organization may submit a new addressing plan to AFRINIC, without having to wait until it can fulfil the requirements for a subsequent allocation, and therefore the organization will not have to prove utilization thresholds, but, instead the desire to apply a different addressing plan that is better suited to the reality of the deployment.

The new size will be adjusted according to the new addressing plan as specified in section 6.5.1.2., and will thus qualify for extending the current prefix the necessary number of bits.

In case is not possible to provide this prefix length because the adjacent space is already being used by another organization, or if making the allocation would not leave sufficient space for subsequent allocations, AFRINIC will inform the applicant, who may choose to:

Receive a new prefix with the new requested size and renumber their network and return the "original" initial allocation within 6 months,
Receive a complementary prefix to complete their addressing plan, and announce both, the "original" initial prefix and the new prefix resulting from the new allocation. For all effects and purposes, in the case of subsequent allocations, both allocations shall be considered as if they were a single allocation.

Each organization may only use this procedure once, so for this "second opportunity" they should carefully study the final medium and long-term network addressing plan.

6.5.2.3 Subsequent Allocation Size

When an organization has achieved an acceptable utilization 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.

If an organization 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.

6.5.2.3 Subsequent Allocation Size

When an organization has achieved an acceptable utilization of its allocated address space, it is immediately eligible to obtain an additional allocation that results in a doubling of the address space it was previously allocated. Where possible, the allocation will be made from an adjacent address block, meaning that its existing allocation will be extended one bit to the left.

If an organization requires more address space, the organization shall provide documentation justifying the space it needs to serve its clients, number of users, extent of its infrastructure, hierarchical and/or geographic structure, infrastructure segmentation for security or other reasons, and the longevity anticipated for the initial allocation.

4. Revision History

Date

Details

28 March 2018

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

Initial Draft Posted to rpd.

5. References

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

Internet Number Resources review by AFRINIC (Draft 5)

: Last Modified on - 18 October 2020

Details

Ref. Name:

AFPUB-2016-GEN-001-DRAFT-05

Versions:5.0

Status: Under Discussion

Author:

Amelina Arnaud
Jean-Baptiste Millogo
Marcus Adomey

Submitted:

21 October 2017

Revision History

Date	Details
21 Oct 2017	Version 5.0 Fifth Draft AFPUB-2016-GEN-001-DRAFT05 Added Paragraph C to 13.3.3 in consultation with the AFRINIC legal counsel. Rephrased Paragraph 13.5 to comply with AFRINIC staff assessment Rephrased Paragraph 13.6 to avoid ambiguity. Amended 13.4 (B) to provide for and align with transfer policies Changed co-authors list. Updated the Acknowledgement section.
11 Apr 2017	Version 4.0 Fourth Draft AFPUB-2016-GEN-001-DRAFT04 Update and Rephrasing of section 3.4 Update and Rephrasing of section 3.5 Update and Rephrasingof section 3.6
18 Nov 2016	Version 3.0 Third Draft AFPUB-2016-GEN-001-DRAFT03 Update of section 3.3.3 from discussions on mailing list Update of section 3.7 (Acknowledgements) to thank the community for discussions and contributions
05 Aug 2016	Version 2.0 Second Draft AFPUB-2016-GEN-001-DRAFT02 Change on the policy’s name Addition of the Acknowledgement section Rephrasing of section 3.3.3
18 May 2016	Version 1.0 First Draft AFPUB-2016-GEN-001-DRAFT01 Posted on RPD list

Proposal

1.0 Summary of the Problem Being Addressed by this Policy Proposal

As Internet Number resources are finite, their allocation is based on operational needs of end-users and Internet Services Providers while avoiding stockpiling in accordance with RFC7020, IPv4 Allocation Policies (CPM 5.5), IPv6 Allocation and assignment policies (CPM 6.5) and Policies for Autonomous System Number Management (CPM 7.0).

Section 4 of the Registration Service Agreement (RSA) provides a framework for investigations of usage of allocated Internet Number resources, defines members’ obligation to cooperate and measures to be taken by AFRINIC in case of failure to comply.

The lack of such investigations or regular controls can lead to inefficient usage of the Internet Number resources, to stockpiling and other type of abuses.

2.0 Summary of How this Proposal Addresses the Problem

In order to ensure efficient and appropriate use of resources, AFRINIC shall conduct regular reviews of resource utilization held by its members. This would allow recovery of any type of resource where usage is not in compliance with the RSA. Those resources can be reallocated for better usage.

3.0 Proposal

The policy proposal will modify the CPM by inserting a section 13 as follows:

13.0 Internet Number Resources Review

Regular reviews of resource utilization are conducted by AFRINIC to ensure efficient and appropriate usage of resources. This allows for recovery of any type of resource where usage is not in compliance with the RSA; to allow such resources to be reallocated for better usage.

13.1 Reviews shall be based on compliance with the terms outlined in the RSA and Allocation/Assignment Policies.

13.2 The reviews cover all allocated/Assigned resources, but priority goes to IPv4 and ASN mappable to two-octet ASNs.

13.3 Classes of review: Members to be reviewed shall be selected according to the following classes:

13.3.1 Random

The member is chosen by AFRINIC at random between members of the following categories:

Medium and above
IPv6-only Large
EU-AS

13.3.2 Selected

A Member is selected because of an internal report or due to a lack of contact between the AFRINIC and the member.

13.3.3 Reported: Here, members are reviewed either because:

a) They have requested the review themselves or;

b) There has been a community complaint made against them that warrants investigation. Complaints shall be backed by evidence and AFRINIC staff shall evaluate the facts as appropriate to conduct the review. However, this review is not applicable to a member with the same resources portfolio on which a full review has been completed in the preceding 24 months.

c) AFRINIC staff may, at its sole discretion, after having assessed the nature of the evidence found in the community complaint, require that such evidence be:

submitted in the form of a sworn affidavit or
declared to be true before a Commissioner of Oath.

13.4 In case of non-compliance and if evidence has been established in accordance with:

Breach of AFRINIC policies,
Breach of the provisions of the registration service agreement or other legal agreements between the organization holding the resource and AFRINIC

AFRINIC shall initiate the resource recovery process:

a) AFRINIC shall attempt to contact the organization and correct any discrepancies or observed non-compliance towards the RSA.

b) If the situation cannot be rectified and the member did not transfer the resources to meet other AFRINIC-approved needs as per adopted policies, AFRINIC shall publish the resources to be recovered for a period of three (3) months; during which the organization may at any time, seek compliance or transfer the resources to other members. After this period, the resource shall be recovered and the records of the previous holder of the recovered resource shall be updated in AFRINIC’s databases.

c) Any Internet Number Resources recovered under this policy may be assigned/allocated under existing Allocation and Assignment Policies.

13.5 Appeals procedure

Reviewed members who are not satisfied have the right to appeal against the result within the four weeks. Appeals shall follow an arbitration process as provided for in the Code de Procedure Civile (Code of Civil Procedure) of the Republic of Mauritius. AFRINIC may, on request from an aggrieved party, suggest a pool of arbitrators who shall be knowledgeable volunteers from the community.

13.6 Compliance Report

AFRINIC shall publish an annual meaningful report describing review activities in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations.

4.0 Acknowledgements

The authors thank Ms Wafa Dahmani Zaafouri (later appointed to the AFRINIC Governance Committee and is currently the Chair), Mr Serge ILUNGA (later elected to the AFRINIC Board for the Region Independent Seat) and Mr Alain P. Aina for their contributions towards the development of this Policy proposal.

The authors also thank the community for all discussions and contributions.

Policy Active Proposals

IPv6 Initial Allocation Update (Draft 1)

Details

Proposal

1.0 Summary of the Problem Being Addressed by this Policy Proposal

2.0 Summary of how this proposal addresses the problem

3. Proposal

4. Revision History

5. References

Internet Number Resources review by AFRINIC (Draft 5)

Details

Revision History

Proposal

1.0 Summary of the Problem Being Addressed by this Policy Proposal

2.0 Summary of How this Proposal Addresses the Problem

3.0 Proposal

4.0 Acknowledgements

staff-assesment