Re: [sig-policy] prop-099-v002: IPv6 Reservation for Large Networks
Sanjaya wrote:
> While clause 3.7 sets the overall goal of the policy, on a practical
> level APNIC Secretariat is bound by clause 5.3.3 that directs us to
> either double the previous allocation upon receiving a qualified
> subsequent request, or if needing more than that, we can
> look at the requestor's 2 year future requirement. Also, clause 5.3.3
> currently has no reference to 'reservation', which is the issue being
> discussed here.
>
> If I read it correctly, prop-099 is targeted at amending clause 5.3.3.
Section 2 of the proposal, which summarises the problem, begins by quoting section 5.2.3 of the policy, which deals with larger initial allocations and then goes on to talk about the slow start policy. I suppose my confusion is rooted in this. If the LIR already operates a substantial network and has a track record, albeit with IPv4, why would a slow start policy be applied? After all, the Secretariat knows the size of the network being numbered and already has some experience with the LIR.
Looking at the first part of the proposal, are LIRs able to request an allocation large enough to number their existing network and reasonable growth over the next five or more years under 5.2.3? After all, the two-year period mentioned in 5.2.3.b relates to the period the LIR has to intend to "move some of its existing IPv4 customers to IPv6" and not the period considered when evaluating the request for a larger initial allocation. That period should presumably be done under the overhead requirement in section 3.7 of the policy.
Many thanks,
Leo