Re: [sig-policy]Policy proposal: IPv6 allocations to IPv4 networks
I support the proposal itself. This would be very helpful in reducing
the unintended barrier in v6 allocations.
I have added my comment below on some parts which I thought the
wording could be misleading.
From: "Paul Wilson" <pwilson at apnic dot net>
Subject: [sig-policy]Policy proposal: IPv6 allocations to IPv4 networks
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 13:05:10 +1000
> I would like to present the following proposal at the coming APNIC meeting.
>
> Paul Wilson
> APNIC
>
> ==============
>
> Proposal: IPv6 allocations to organisations with existing IPv4
> infrastructure
>
> Version 1.0
>
>
> Background
>
> The current IPv6 policy allows existing IPv4 infrastructure to be considered
> in requests for IPv6 address space. This is described in section 4.4
> "Consideration of IPv4 Infrastructure", which states:
>
> "Where an existing IPv4 service provider requests IPv6 space for eventual
> transition of existing services to IPv6, the number of present IPv4
> customers may be used to justify a larger request than would be justified if
> based solely on the IPv6 infrastructure."
>
> This policy indicates an intention to consider an existing IPv4 network in
> order to justify larger allocations, however it does not sufficiently
> describe how that infrastructure and customer base should be taken into
> account in making an IPv6 allocation. This policy proposal aims to address
> this problem by clarifying the relevant policy and procedures.
>
>
> Proposal
>
> The IPv6 policy and allocation procedures should be updated to explicitly
> document the consideration given to an existing infrastructure and customer
> base.
>
> Section 4.4 of the policy should be replaced with the following:
>
> "Where an existing IPv4 service provider requests IPv6 space for provision
> of existing services via IPv6, the existing IPv4 infrastructure and customer
> base will be evaluated, and an IPv6 allocation will be made which is
> sufficient to allow the network to be addressed using IPv6.
Instead of "will be evaluated", could I suggest a phrase like "could
be used as a reference" or something of the equivalent? I would like
to emphasis that it is optional, not compulsory, and the v4
infrastruture itself won't be evaluated in details.
Also, should we clarify that the v4 information is not restricted to
infrastructure and customer base, and simply the number of customers
can work as the justification as well?
For example, if an ISP develops totally independent infrastructure of
v4 and v6 but plans to transfer the v4 customers into v6 service, then
the number of v4 customers on its own is useful enough.
I don't know if this should be added as a policy statement, or make a
general statement about v4 information in the policy and describe the
details in the guidelines. Perhaps, the guidelines allows more
flexibility, but it doesn't really matter either way for me.
> Section 5.1.2 should be replaced with the following:
>
> "Organizations that meet the initial allocation criteria are eligible to
> receive a minimum allocation of /32.
>
> "Qualifying organizations may request an initial allocation greater than /32
> by submitting additional documentation that reasonably justifies the
> request. This may include comprehensive documentation of the planned
> infrastructure; or, in accordance with section 4.4, a description of an
> existing IPv4 network which is to receive IPv6 addresses. In either case,
> an allocation will be made which fulfills the calculated address
> requirement, in accordance with the HD-Ratio based utilisation policy."
>
> In evaluating a request under this "existing IPv4 network" provision,
> standard hostmaster request processes will be used to determine the total
> IPv6 addressing requirement of the existing infrastructure and customer
> base. Information may be obtained from previous requests and/or database
> registrations, and additional exchanges as required.
The same comment as for Section 4.4. I think we should clarify in some
way that v4 information used as a reference is not restricted to
infrastructure and customer base.
> The request and evaluation should apply only to IPv4 infrastructure and
> customers which are intended to receive IPv6 addresses. It is not necessary
> that the organisation commit to a complete transition to IPv6 at any time,
> only that the IPv6 addresses will be used, and that use of the address space
> will commence within 2 years.
This could be controvercial, but I am a little concerned about the
last sentence. Wouldn't this encourate those without an intention of
starting a v6 service to receive allocations?
If we want to prevent this, I would like to suggest replacing "the use
of the address space" with something like "plans to provice IPv6
service within 2 years". If the word "plan" is too strong, "intends to
provide..." may be okay too.
Izumi
JPNIC
>
> NIR Considerations
>
> This policy should be applicable equally to all NIRs in the APNIC region.
>
>
> Implementation
>
> This policy should become effective in the APNIC region after approval
> through the APNIC policy process, and reasonable coordination efforts
> involving other RIR regions.
>
>
>
> * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
> _______________________________________________
> sig-policy mailing list
> sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net
> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
>