Establishment of global IPv6 address policies
MEMBER BRIEFING 12 < Main Index
|7 April 2003||By Takashi Arano|
In RFC1881, the IETF community recognized the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA)as the appropriate entity to have the responsibility for the management of the IPv6 address space. IANA does this administration under the direction of the IAB and IESG. IANA, in turn, allocates IPv6 blocks to the RIRs for further allocation to their members. The IP address policies explained in this article are the framework by which RIRs, and other downstream IRs, manage these addresses.
IP address space, which is a finite public resource, must be managed in a prudent manner with regards to the long-term interests of the Internet. This responsibility is undertaken by RIRs, in accordance with an agreed set of specific technical goals which support Internet growth and stability, and management goals which support security and access to the resources. The six goals in IPv6 address space management are as follows.
1. Guarantee of uniqueness
Every assignment and/or allocation of address space must guarantee uniqueness worldwide, in order to allow each end node to be identified uniquely.
Every assignment and allocation of address space must be registered in a publicly accessible database. It is necessary that the database is able to immediately identify the party responsible for the management of any given IP address or block of addresses.
3. Aggregation of routing information
The idea is to ensure that as far as possible, sites connected close to each other in the network topology have adjacent address blocks, so that a single routing prefix announcement can cover many sites. This enables reduction of router loads and contributes to the scalability and stability of the Internet routing system.
Although IPv6 provides an extremely large pool of address space, address policies should try to minimise wasteful assignments to organizations and make effective use of the available address space wherever possible.
Since IP addresses are public resources, they should wherever possible be fairly assigned. Address policies need to avoid assigning more addresses to specific organizations, countries, regions, and industries.
6. Minimized Overhead
It is desirable to minimize the overhead associated with obtaining address space.
However, these six goals are mutually conflicting. If the focus is only on the aggregation of routing information, for instance, address space would be wasted and address conservation could not be achieved. On the other hand, an approach of maximising conservation would threaten aggregation, increase administrative overheads and reduce fairness in actual address policies. Thus address policies should be developed by balancing the above goals.
In the past, each registry, as an organization making allocation and assignments, developed its own policies independently. However, as a result of strong requests for a well-balanced policy, changes have been instigated by community consensus at Regional Open Policy Meetings. At these meetings, opinions are gathered from a wide range of interested parties which encourages well-balanced policy-making.
The former IPv6 address policy was first established in May 1999. This policy was developed provisionally by RIRs, based on the requirements of the IPv6 address architecture defined in RFC 2374.
However, because the policy was based on an IETF architectural document rather than on existing experience in address management, it had numerous inconsistencies and problems. As a provisional policy, it also left a lot of other details undefined. Now that the actual implementation of IPv6 is underway, it has become necessary to quickly revise this policy and establish a new policy appropriate for actual network use. Particularly in Japan and in the Asian region, there are many Internet Service Providers (ISP) who have already started commercial service and have been conducting experiments in this field. The need for a new, clearer, and comprehensive IPv6 policy in this region was the strongest in the world.
Within this background, a new IPv6 policy was proposed at the APNIC Open Policy Meeting in Taipei in August 2001. Following this, about a year later, consensus for all of the basic ideas of this policy was achieved at a series of RIRs' meetings in March and April 2002 (APNIC in Bangkok in March, ARIN in Las Vegas in April, RIPE-NCC in Amsterdam in April). On July 1st, 2002, the new IPv6 policy was established and implemented throughout the world.
The main points of the new policy are briefly discussed as follows. Please refer to the most recent document for more exact and detailed description at: www.apnic.net/docs/policy/ipv6-address-policy.html
1. Compared to the IPv4 address policy, the goal of aggregation is particularly important in IPv6 addressing, where the size of the total address pool creates significant implications for both internal and external routing. IPv6 address policies should seek to avoid fragmentation of address ranges.
2. Initial allocation criteria 1
3. Subsequent request criteria
4. Assignment to an end site
5. Registration in the database
6. Reverse DNS delegation
7. Existing IPv6 space holders
Finally, I would like to express my appreciation for the editorial team of IPv6 address policy and the drafting team in Japan who supported this activity. Policies are "alive", and more revision will be required, subject to the future progress of IPv6 deployment and the experience gained therein. Your continuous support is highly appreciated.
I appreciate Paul Wilson and Anne Lord of APNIC who proofread this article and gave me a lot of useful suggestions.
Appendix: Abbreviation list in alphabetical order
APNIC: Asia Pacific
Network Information Centre
1. IAB-Request www.iab.org/Documents/IPv6addressspace.txt
1. Please note that there are two types of "address distribution". One is that address blocks are provided not for the direct use by the organization that received address, but for subsequent distribution to the downstream. The other is to distribute the address to the downstream for the actual use. In address policies, we call the former "Allocation" and the latter "Assignment", and we strictly differentiate them.
Expanded Coverage from ISOC
In-depth articles, papers, links and other resources on a variety of topics are available from the ISOC site at: www.isoc.org/internet/issues
Examples in the News
Relevant IETF RFCs
For More Information
About the Author
Takashi Arano is CTO of Intec NetCore, Inc. After receiving his Master of Science degree from the University of Tokyo, he lead NTT's Internet department as chief engineer. He joined Intec NetCore in June 2002. Takashi has contributed to the Internet, especially in the address management and IPv6 area, by holding positions of ICAAN ASO Address Council (1999-), Chair of APNIC Address Policy SIG (2000-), and Program Chair of the first Global IPv6 Summit in Asia Pacific (2003).
The ISOC Member Briefing series is made possible through the generous assistance of ISOC's Platinum Program Sponsors: Afilias, APNIC, ARIN, Microsoft, and the RIPE NCC, Sida. More information on the Platinum Sponsorship Program...
About the Background Paper Series
4, rue des Falaises
Series Editor: Martin Kupres
Copyright C Internet Society 2005.