2010-8 Previous Version [Archived]

View the current policy proposal text.

The following version was archived on 23 November 2010.

Draft Policy 2010-8
Rework of IPv6 assignment criteria

Version/Date: 14 September 2010

Replace section 6.5.8 as follows;

6.5.8. Direct assignments from ARIN to end-user organizations

6.5.8.1 Initial Assignment Criteria

Organizations may justify an initial assignment for addressing devices
directly attached to their own network infrastructure, with an intent
for the addresses to begin operational use within 12 months, by meeting
one of the following 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 having a network consisting of a total of 1000 or more hosts, or;

d. By providing a reasonable technical justification indicating why IPv6
addresses from an ISP or other LIR are unsuitable.

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 can justify the need for an assignment
based on the fact that renumbering would have a broader than expected
impact than simply the number of hosts directly 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 directly involved, an organization
can justify the need for an assignment if renumbering would affect 1000
or more individuals either internal or external to the organization.
• An organization with a network not connected to the Internet can
justify the need for an assignment by documenting a need for guaranteed
uniqueness, beyond the statistical uniqueness provided by ULA (see RFC
4193).
• An organization with a network not connected to the Internet, such as
a VPN overlay network, can justify the need for an assignment if they
require authoritative delegation of reverse DNS.

6.5.8.2 Initial assignment size

Organizations that meet at least one of the initial assignment criteria
above are eligible to receive an initial assignment of /48. Requests for
larger initial assignments, reasonably justified with supporting
documentation, will be evaluated based on the number of sites in an
organization’s network and the number of subnets needed to support any
extra-large sites defined below.

6.5.8.2.1 /48 per site

An organization may request up to a /48 for each site in its network,
including any sites that will be operational within 12 months. Where a
site is a discrete location that is part of an organization’s network.
In the case of a multi-tenant building, each organization located at the
site may separately justify a /48 for its network at the site.

A campus with multiple buildings may be considered as one or multiple
sites, based on the implementation of its network infrastructure. For a
campus to be considered as multiple sites, reasonable technical
documentation must be submitted describing how the network
infrastructure is implemented in a manner equivalent to multiple sites.

6.5.8.2.2 Extra-large site

In rare cases, an organization may request more than a /48 for an
extra-large site which requires more than 16,384 /64 subnets. In such a
case, a detailed subnet plan must be submitted for each extra-large site
in an organization’s network. An extra-large site will receive the
smallest prefix such that the total subnet utilization justified does
not exceed 25%. Each extra-large site will be counted as an equivalent
number of /48 sites.

6.5.8.2.3 Larger initial assignments

Larger initial assignments will be determined based on the number of
sites justified above, aligned on a nibble boundary using the following
table:

More than 1 but less than or equal to 12 sites justified, receives a /44
assignment;
More than 12 but less than or equal to 192 /sites justified, receives a
/40 assignment;
More than 192 but less than or equal to 3,072 sites justified, receives
a /36 assignment;
More than 3,072 sites justified, receives a /32 assignment or larger.

In cases where more than 3,072 sites are justified, an assignment of the
smallest prefix, aligned on a nibble boundary, will be made such that
the total utilization based on the number of sites justified above does
not exceed 75%.

6.5.8.3 Subsequent assignments

Requests for subsequent assignments with supporting documentation will
be evaluated based on the same criteria as an initial assignment under
6.5.8.2 with the following modifications:

a. A subsequent assignment is justified when the total utilization based
on the number of sites justified exceeds 75% across all of an
organization’s assignments. Except, if the organization received an
assignment per section 6.11 IPv6 Multiple Discrete Networks, such
assignments will be evaluated as if it were to a separate organization.

Organizations may have multiple separate assignments that should be
considered in total, due to previous subsequent assignments made per
clause 6.5.8.3.c below, or through Mergers and Acquisitions in section 8.2.

b. When possible subsequent assignments will result it the expansion of
an existing assignment by one or more nibble boundaries as justified.

c. If it is not possible to expand an existing assignment, or to expand
it adequately to meet the justified need, then a separate new assignment
will be made of a size as justified.

6.5.8.4 Consolidation and return of separate assignments

Organizations with multiple separate assignments should consolidate into
a single aggregate, if feasible. If an organization stops using one or
more of its separate assignments, any unused assignments must be
returned to ARIN.

Rationale:

This proposal provides a complete rework of the IPv6 end-user assignment
criteria, removing the dependency on IPv4 policy, providing clear
guidance in requesting larger initial assignments, and eliminating
HD-Ratio as criteria for evaluating end-user assignments.

The HD-Ratio is replaced with a simplified 75% utilization threshold
based on nibble boundaries for end-user assignments. This threshold is
somewhat more restrictive for larger assignments, while slightly less
restrictive for the smaller /44 assignments, than the HD-Ratio.
However, in both cases it is much easier for an end-user to understand
the policy criteria that applies to them.

The following general concepts are included:

• Previously justified IPv4 resources may be used to justify the need
for IPv6 resources
• Internet multihoming is sufficient justification for an IPv6 end-user
assignment in and of itself
• Networks with more than 1000 hosts have a justified need for IPv6
resources; as is the case in current policy, it is just more clearly
stated without relying on a reference to, and the consequences of, IPv4
policy
• Other end-users must justify why an ISP or LIR assignment is not
sufficient for their needs
• Organizations with multiple sites may receive a /48 for each site in
their network
• A campus with multiple buildings may be considered as one or multiple
sites, based on the implementation of its network infrastructure
• Reservations are no longer necessary as ARIN has committed to sparse
assignment for IPv6
• Providing sufficiently large initial assignments based on nibble
boundaries along with sparse assignments will reduce route table growth
caused solely by subsequent assignments

The 25% subnet utilization for an extra-large site is proposed as the
threshold for a larger prefix in order to allow an extra-large site
enough room to create an organized subnet plan. Requiring denser usage
would make it almost impossible for an extra-large site to maintain any
kind of organized subnet plan. Furthermore, even at 25% utilization,
more than 16,384 subnets are required to justify more than a /48 for a
site. Few, if any, sites can actually meet or exceed this threshold.

The ARIN Board of Trusties should consider incentives that provide
additional motivation for end-users to consolidate into a single
aggregate per section 6.5.8.4 of this policy.

Timetable for implementation: Immediate

The following version was archived on 14 September 2010.

Draft Policy 2010-8
Rework of IPv6 assignment criteria

Version/Date: 5 April 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 of /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 why this is necessary.
• The need for documented uniqueness, beyond the statistical uniqueness provided by ULA, including documentation why 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.

6.5.9. 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 of /56s for smaller satellite sites.

Move current 6.5.9 Community Network Assignments as-is to section 6.5.10.

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.
• Previously justified IPv4 resources may be used 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.

Timetable for implementation: Immediate

The following version was archived on 5 April 2010.

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