Re: [JPNIC ip-v6 100] Re: IPv6 sub-TLA allocation service at NIR.

[Kazu Yamamoto ($B;3K\OBI'(B )<kazu@iijlab.net>]

Anne,

From: Anne Lord <anne@apnic.net>
Subject: Re: [JPNIC ip-v6 100] Re: IPv6 sub-TLA allocation service at NIR.

> JPNIC.  A procedural difference over where the reverse delegations are 
> managed from - does not affect the larger principle of registration, 
> which is a distributed responsibility through the hierarchy of the 
> registry system from IANA-RIR-NIR-LIR.  While an organisation
> obtains IPv6 address space through JPNIC and is JPNIC's member,
> JPNIC has that responsibility. It goes with the job. 

First of all, what I want to let you know is that we can't simply
apply the IPv4 case to the IPv6 case. And I believe you have already
noticed the difference.

Second think we should realize is that it is not so easy to encourage
sub-TLA holders to maintain the APNIC DB since there is no carrot.

Third, wearing a JPNIC hat, it is not practical for JPNIC to have
responsibility on maintenance of APNIC DB mainly because of the lack
of human power.

And I don't understand the case of WIDE/NTT where the sub-TLA holders
directly obtained sub-TLA from APNIC.

> Does JPNIC have support for an IPv6 network object? If so, your members 
> can register in the JPNIC database. This can then be mirrored as it
> is today.

JPNIC decided to not maintain IPv6 objects in the JPNIC DB at the
*start point*. I will explain it in another message.

P.S.

Wearing a WIDE hat, IPv6 working group of WIDE Project decided to
carry out experiment of sub DB under APNIC, including DB-DB updata
protocol, effective arrangement of DNS servers for reverse lookup.

--Kazu