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

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

Hi all,


I've modified the proposed criteria to add a plan for routing
annoucement within two years:

----
     - Have a plan for making at least 200 assignments to other
      organizations within two years, OR;

     - Be an existing LIR with IPv4 allocations from an RIR/NIR AND have
       a plan for making assignments and/or sub-allocations to other
       organizations within two years. *The LIR should also plan to
       announce the allocation as a single aggregated block in the
       inter-domain routing system within two years.*
----

It's inteded to allocate IPv6 to organizations which are equivalent in
scale as in IPv4 and has a plan to distribute IPv6 to other organizations.

Comments are welcome on whether this criteria adequately reflects the
target.


izumi


Izumi Okutani wrote:
> Hi Philip,
> 
> 
> I understand your concern now. If I read it correctly, you feel this
> proposal is too relaxed as it doesn't require any commitment for route
> annoucements/service plan?
> 
> The reason why we didn't mention it was because it is already a part of
> criteria c), but I personally don't have a problem about incorporating
> this part into d) as part of two years's commitment.
> 
> Let me discuss it with my co-author Toshi to see how we can revise it
> and get back to the list again. Your input was really helpful. Thanks!
> 
> 
> izumi
> 
> Philip Smith wrote:
>> Hi Izumi,
>>
>> Izumi Okutani said the following on 1/2/08 19:04:
>>> This proposal is in fact intended to be most strict among RIRs and not
>>> the same as Jordi's.
>> Not how I read it. :-(
>>
>>> I hope this clarifies that this proposal is not generous compared to
>>> other RIRs and certainly doesn't intend to give out IPv6 allocations to
>>> anyone.
>> I think you need to update the text, unfortunately. It would certainly 
>> be very helpful to have it updated to correct errors I previously 
>> highlighted, as, reading it again right now, it doesn't reflect what you 
>> are saying here in e-mail.
>>
>>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> 1) Ensure that a organization of a certain size with a plan to deploy
>>> IPv6 will be the target
>>>    --> AfriNIC: show a reasonable plan for making + make route
>>>        announcement within 1 year
>> Your proposal has nothing about making a route announcement - so AfriNIC 
>> is more strict.
>>
>>>    --> ARIN: be an existing, known ISP in the ARIN region
>> I take that to mean LIR membership. What's an ISP? ;-)
>>
>>>    --> LACNIC: Provide IPv6 services within 2 years
>> LACNIC is more strict - you can't provide services without announcing 
>> prefixes.
>>
>>>    --> RIPE: have a plan to sub-delegate to other organizations within 2
>>>              years
>> Same as your's, very very relaxed. No requirement to do anything at all.
>>
>>>    --> proposal: be an LIR with IPv4 allocations and have a plan to
>>>                  sub-delegate to other organizations within 2 years
>>>      (It has to meet an equivalent of *both* ARIN and RIPE's criteria in
>>> our proposal)
>> This is very relaxed. No requirement to announce address space at all, 
>> so no requirement to provide services. So yes, I'd say similar to RIPE 
>> NCC's (not RIPE - different organisation, not the same community).
>>
>> Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. A lot of history is 
>> being ignored.
>>
>> So, basically the proposal is saying: "if you are an LIR with IPv4 
>> addresses and you plan to get at least two customers over the next 2 
>> years, you can get an IPv6 /32". Reminds me of the way that Class Bs 
>> were handed out to orgs with more than about 100 hosts.
>>
>> If prop-053 also goes through, than basically any ISP who gets an IPv4 
>> /24 can also get an IPv6 /32 by saying they have a plan to have 2 
>> customers over the next 2 years.
>>
>> Mind you, will JPNIC members understand that "plan to have 2 customers" 
>> is actually just a plan, and not a mandatory requirement? I suspect you 
>> might want to come along later and delete the word "plan" as people in 
>> the JPNIC community may not understand what it means?
>>
>> As I've said before, this proposal is not solving any known problem 
>> apart from a mistranslation in one economy in our whole community. If 
>> the upcoming APNIC meeting approves it, it basically removes all concept 
>> of responsible address management for IPv6.
>>
>> philip
>> --
>> *              sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy           *
>> _______________________________________________
>> sig-policy mailing list
>> sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
>> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
> 
> *              sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy           *
> _______________________________________________
> sig-policy mailing list
> sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy