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

[Philip Smith <pfs@cisco.com>]

Hi Izumi,

Izumi Okutani said the following on 31/1/08 19:17:
> 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.

It absolutely was not! Look at the "Situations in other RIRs" text of 
this very proposal. ;-) Even the text there contradicts itself.

ARIN threw Jordi's proposal out - they still require a plan for 200 
assignments. The other RIRs have replaced "200" with text including 
"reasonable plan" or "must make IPv6 assignments", etc. I've cut and 
pasted below. The first para, btw, is plain wrong.

----------
All RIRs except APNIC no longer require a mandatory plan for 200
assignments.

The current IPv6 initial allocation criteria (in relation to assignment
requirements) in each region are below:

     - ARIN
         ...be an existing, known ISP in the ARIN region or have a plan
         for making at least 200 /48 assignments to other organizations
         within five years.

     - AfriNIC
         ...show a reasonable plan for making /48 IPv6 assignments to
         end sites in the AfriNIC region within twelve months. The LIR
         should also plan to announce the allocation as a single
         aggregated block in the inter-domain routing system within
         twelve months.

     - LACNIC
         ...Offer IPv6 services to clients or entities owns/related
         (including departments and/or sites) physically located within
         the region  covered by LACNIC within a period not longer than
         24 months.

     - RIPE NCC
         ...have a plan for making sub-allocations to other organisations
         and/or End Site assignments within two years.
----------

This proposal for the APNIC region is the most generous of the lot, 
simply saying you'll get IPv6 if you have an existing IPv4 allocation. 
There is no requirement that an LIR do anything with the IPv6 allocation 
at all. I'd suggest this goes against APNIC's principle of stewardship 
and fair distribution of Internet resources, and allows LIRs to hoard 
address space.

And then you said you are open to modifications to the this proposal as 
long as the modifications don't "give away IPv6"??

Why all the contradictions?

As I've already said, this proposal is completely flawed. It should 
firstly get its facts correct, and then it should come up with a 
reasonable suggestion for replacement of "200" so that APNIC doesn't 
simply end up giving away IPv6 address space to all comers.

philip
--