Comment on the Proposal to allocate IPv6 address by nation…

          Comment on the Proposal to allocate IPv6 address by nation states

                                                           (IGTF-
                   Internet Governance Task Force of Japan (IGTF-J)
                                            24
                                  November 24, 2004

        This paper is a work in progress and we welcome your comments for further revision.


Summary
This Memo provides IGTF-J's comment on the new proposed scheme to allocate IPv6
address by nation states and managed by their governments as a dual system operating
concurrently with the current IP address system operated by the Regional Internet
Registries, suggested in the paper written by Mr. Zhao of ITU Telecommunications
Standard Bureau.

1 Technical requirements to allocate IPv6 Address
Internet Protocol (IP) has two distinct characteristics in terms of addressing:
1) Fixed address length, and
2) Every packet has an embedded address, which is required for connectionless
communication.
This means, as is seen in the case of transition from IPv4 to IPv6, that in order to change
the address system the protocols must also be changed fundamentally. Therefore, in order
to use a protocol as long as possible, maximum care should be taken to guarantee
availability of IP addresses indefinitely for all users who want to communicate.

Since IPv6 has a vast address space of 128 bits, many people tend to forget the importance
of conservation of address resources. However, IPv6 is not different from IPv4 in terms of
fixed address length. It should be noted that IPv6 address resources are vast but not
infinite, and also that their practical availability is far lower than the theoretical
maximum. For instance, address segments are simply divided such that the lower 64 bits
of the 128 bits of IPv6 is used for addressing within a single LAN segment, while the
address length for individual sites is only 48 bits. These factors immediately lower the
address availability dramatically.

In addition to the care for the quantity of address allocation, care should also be taken for
preservation of an operational routing system. Even if quantitative conservation is fully
taken care of, routing aggregation is essential in order to ensure global routability for all
IP addresses. Excessive fragmentation of Ipv6 address space will cause a failure of the
routing system resulting in discontinuation of services to many part of the Internet. This
would affect many network providers, and especially small operators who will suffer
unsustainable cost increase due to increasingly expensive routers required to operate in
this environment.

2. Management scheme requirements to satisfy technical requirements
Currently, IP address management and allocation is carried out by four Regional Internet
Registries (RIRs) under the central management by IANA (Internet Assigned Numbers


                                                1
Authority). The RIR framework has operated for over 10 years and is the only IP Address
space allocation mechanism with a successful proven record. Should a new and different
management scheme be introduced in the future, that new scheme must satisfy the
technical requirements mentioned in 1. above as much as the current RIR framework, and
any method that has the potential to undermine these requirements must be avoided.

The most important policy in allocation of IP address space is fairness. Allocation
standards must be kept globally uniform, regardless of the region or property of user
organizations. In case there are plural bodies that provide address allocation services, the
difference in allocation standards must not become elements of competition. To guarantee
this it is essential to maintain uniform allocation policies achieved through coordination
activities between parallel allocation bodies and education mechanisms from upstream
allocation bodies to downstream bodies (which is currently maintained by assignment
window with autonomous size judgment) such as currently exercised by RIR-NIR-LIR1
scheme.

It is also very desirable to develop address allocation policies by open meeting process that
is open to all interested parties including users which is also currently exercised by RIRs
and their constituencies.

                            Nation-state
3. Perceived characters of Nation-state based addressing
Let's assume that IP addresses are allocated by nation states. This will enable easy
recognition of some users' nationality/locale by reading the first several bits of addresses,
and enable attractive services such as automatic traffic segmentations, prioritized
processing and statistical processing, but it will also enable questionable applications such
as easy censorship, tracking or restriction of communication content.

In any case, existing addresses already allocated (both IPv4 and IPv6) have not been
allocated on a national basis, and if only some addresses are allocated in this manner, then
not all IP addresses will have the same characteristics or support the above services

                                              nation-
4. Concerns toward managing IP address by nation-states
We believe that fulfilling both 1. Technical requirements and 2. Management scheme
requirements are essential for IP address allocation and management even in case of the
existing arrangements by RIRs. Therefore, we should not accept any risk of not meeting
these conditions.

Mr. Zhao's paper discusses about installing the IP address management by nation-states
with the current RIR scheme continuing to operate in parallel. We are, however, much
worried that we may not be able to keep consistent allocation standards in those parallel
systems, including a worse case that these two systems will compete as IP address
allocation service providers and result in compromise to existing essential standards of
address management.

1 RIR (Regional Internet Registry), NIR (National Internet Registry) and LIR (Local
Internet Registry)

                                             2
We do understand that national governments have much interest in Internet governance
issues including IP address allocations and that they want to protect these resources
under national sovereignty perspectives, as Internet is becoming a kind of social
infrastructure these days. However, we strongly believe that the conditions required for
address management as mentioned above should not be constrained or limited by the
interests of national sovereignties, but they should be kept in order to preserve the
functions of Internet to be used among all the people of the world for their distribution of
information and communication.

                                             ***
Internet Governance Task Force of Japan is a joint group established in August 2004 by
individuals and organizations from the Japanese Internet Community and Internet
                                                                               WGIG
Industry to engage in the activities of the Working Group on Internet Governance
to achieve safe and trusted global framework of Internet operation and application
through maintaining and further developing private sector-led management.

This memo was drafted by IGTF Working Group on Internet Resources, including Takashi Arano
(Member of the Board, IPv6 Forum) and Akinori Maemura (Chair, Executive Council of APNIC); they
worked in their individual capacity and not representing the organization they are affiliated with.



Internet Governance Task Force of Japan
www.igtf.jp/e

Chairman: Prof. Shumpei Kumon (University of Tama)

Full Member:
  Japan Internet Providers Association (JAIPA)
  Japan Network Information Center (JPNIC)
  Japan Registry Services (JPRS)
  Internet Association Japan (IA Japan)
Associate member:
  Internet Users Network
  New Institute for Social Knowledge and Collaboration, University of Tama
  Institute for HyperNetwork Society

For more information, please contact:
  Izumi Aizu
  Internet Governance Task Force Secretariat
  Tel: +81-3-3402-8180 E-mail: sec@igtf.jp www.igtf.jp/e




                                                    3