[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [sig-policy] prop-057-v001: Proposal to change IPv6 initial allocation criteria
Hi Philip,
Great. Thanks for your input - I really appreciate it.
I agree about the route annoucement requirement. It's already a part of
the current criteria and we need something that ensures that the space
will actually be used.
Comments from others is also very welcome.
izumi
Philip Smith wrote:
> Hi Izumi,
>
> This certainly works for me now! Thank you.
>
> (I'm sure some people will whine about announcing the IPv6 space as a
> single aggregated block, but I think stating that requirement is a good
> idea. ;-))
>
> philip
> --
>
> Izumi Okutani said the following on 5/2/08 11:57:
>> 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
>> * 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
