[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[sig-policy] Presentation for the Address Policy SIG
Dear Anne,
Thank you for the comment.
As you have suggested, I think the terms "gTLD/ccTLC registries" and
"NIR" avoids any confusion, so I will use them in my presentation.
> > > i. /48 should be assigned to IX
> > > Pros
> > > - Can be assigned out of /32 reserved for IX assignments
>
>Just for your information current assignments are from a reserved /32.
I see. Thanks for letting me know.
In that case, I will remove this statement since the assignment size
makes no big difference in this respect.
>
> > > - all IXs will receive the same assignment size throughout the
> > > world
> > > - it is the minumum size to be registered into DB
> > > Cons
> > > - Assignments have already been made
> > > - /64 could meet the needs sufficiently
>
>It might be worth adding whether or not you plan to upgrade existing /64
>holders into /48's - this would currently require renumbering as the
>assignments are sequential.
Yes, that is a good point.
I will note in the presentation that the existing /64 holders may ask
for an upgrade but renumbering would be required.
> > > iii./48 should be assigned to gTLD/ccTLD DNS
<snip>
> > > Pros
> > > - Can be assigned out of /32 reserved for this purpose
<snip>
>What was the reasoning behind making the DNS assignments from two
>separate reserved /32's? Could they be made from the same reserved
>/32 to simplify filters etc.
Sorry, this was simply the problem with the way I phrased it.
My intention was to make assignments from the same reserved /32 as you
have suggested. I will rephrase it as "Can be assigned out of /32
reserved for micro allocations".
Thank you once again for the comments and any other feedbacks are very
welcome.
Regards,
Izumi
>
>Dear Okutani San,
>
>It is good to see this proposal (and the proposal from Murai San and
>Kato San) for the agenda of the address policy SIG.
>
>I have a few queries and comments on the proposal below.
>
>I agree with Arano San that it would be good to have some discussion
>on the mailing list before the meeting.
>
>Comments below.
>
> > >Comparison of RIR's IPv6 policy implementation for Essential
> > >Infrastructure
> > >
> > >I. Current Status of IPv6 policy
> > >II. Comparison of RIR's policy for Essential Infrastructure
> > >III. Current Status of AP policy
> > >IV. Proposed AP policy
> > >V. Conclusion
> > >
>
>[snip]
>
> > >IV. Proposed AP policy
> > >
> > > To make policy for Essential Infrastructure consistent across the
> > > Region, we propose to make the policy consiten with that of ARIN.
> > >
> > > i. /48 should be assigned to IX
> > > Pros
> > > - Can be assigned out of /32 reserved for IX assignments
>
>Just for your information current assignments are from a reserved /32.
>
> > > - all IXs will receive the same assignment size throughout the
> > > world
> > > - it is the minumum size to be registered into DB
> > > Cons
> > > - Assignments have already been made
> > > - /64 could meet the needs sufficiently
>
>It might be worth adding whether or not you plan to upgrade existing /64
>holders into /48's - this would currently require renumbering as the
>assignments are sequential.
>
> > > ii./48 should be assigned to Rt.DNS
> > > Pros
> > > - Can be assigned out of /32 reserved for Rt.DNS
> > > - Can be made routable by posting the address block publicly
> > > Cons
> > > - The risk to be filtered is higher than /32
> > >
> > > iii./48 should be assigned to gTLD/ccTLD DNS
>
>I think it is worth clarifying that by gTLD and ccTLD 'essential
>infrastructure' you mean the registries (ie. where the machines sit)
>rather than the registrars.
>
> > > Pros
> > > - Can be assigned out of /32 reserved for this purpose
> > > - Consistent with assignment to Rt.DNS
> > > - Consitent with ARIN's policy
> > >
> > > iv./48 should be assigned to RIR/NIC/IANA
>
>I think NIC above should be changed to NIR.
>
> > > Pros
> > > - Difficult to receive an assignment from a particular ISP due
> > > to the independent nature of its organization
> > > - Consitent with ARIN's policy
> > > Cons
> > > - No major technical problem by receiving assignment from
> > > upstream
>
>What was the reasoning behind making the DNS assignments from two
>separate reserved /32's? Could they be made from the same reserved
>/32 to simplify filters etc.
>
>That's all from me.
>
>regards,
>Anne
>--
>
> > >V. Conclusion
> > > To follow the spirit of the joint IPv6 policy, we should make a
> > > globally consistent policy for essential infrastructure.
> > >
> > > In order to achieve this, we propose the following assignment
> > > size
> > >
> > > RIPE ARIN APNIC JPNIC
> > > ----------------+----------+----------+----------+----------
> > > Rt.DNS | /32 | /48 | - | /48
> > > IX | /48 | /48(*) | /64 | /48
> > > gTLD/ccTLD | | /48(*) | - | /48
> > > RIR/NIC/IANA | | /48 | | /48
> >
> >
> > * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy
> *
> > * To unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe" to sig-policy-request@apnic.net *
> >
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
* To unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe" to sig-policy-request@apnic.net *
