Re: [sig-policy] prop-057-v001: Proposal to change IPv6 initial allocation criteria

[Izumi Okutani <izumi@nic.ad.jp>]

Philip Smith wrote:
> Sam Dickinson said the following on 31/1/08 10:43:
>> Two member surveys have been conducted since the IPv6 policy document
>> was adopted in 2002. In the responses to those surveys, the 'plan
>> for 200 assignments' criteria was not mentioned as a barrier to
>> applying for an IPv6 allocation.
> 
> Great, thanks very much for your response, Sam.
> 
> So, Izumi-san has identified a real problem within the Japanese 
> community. Yet APNIC member surveys don't show a problem anywhere else 
> in AsiaPac, which tallies with my experience too.
> 
> May I politely suggest that JPNIC works with their membership to clarify 
> that "come up with a plan for 200 assignments in 2 years" is NOT the 
> same as "you MUST make 200 assignments in 2 years or else"?
> 
> To me it makes no sense making the huge effort to change a regional 
> policy if the interpretation problem only exists in one member economy.
> 

I note a few other voices of support for this proposal on the mailing
list, so I don't think we can be sure that the problem is closed within
Japan. If we also look worldwide, similar proposal was supported and
implemented in all other regions except APNIC.

I think the nature of this issue is that it could be a problem for
small/medium ISPs who plan for IPv6 deployment, but not for large ISPs
or those who haven't seriously considered it.

I'd agree that it's a problem which only exists in JP if a survey was
conducted to ask if the current criteria is being a barrier when
considering to deploy IPv6 and hardly anyone considers it as an issue.


izumi