Re: [sig-policy] prop-102-v001: Sparse allocation guidelines for IPv6 re
Thank you for the feedback from JPNIC.
I understand from your feedback that you do not agree that sparse
allocation show be controlled by policy.
Given that this is the basis of the proposal, would you be able to
expand on the changes you see necessary in order to be able to give
your support?
Regards,
Dean
On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 9:11 PM, Izumi Okutani <izumi at nic dot ad dot jp> wrote:
> Hi, I'd like to share the feedback from JPNIC.
>
> We support the idea of documenting about sparse allocation practice but
> also have some concerns.
>
> We think sparse allocations should be an operational decision of APNIC
> and shouldn't be forced (mandated) or be defined as "policy". We also
> think publishing details of sparse alllocation algorithm is too much
> details into operations and not necessary.
>
> We can trust and leave this to the secretariat's decision without
> forcing or seeing all the details.
>
> We support about:
> * Documenting as operational guidelines
> * LIRs can request for sparse allocations by providing 5 years estimate
> * APNIC makes the decision about sparse allocations based on this
> estimate as a reference
>
> Additional Suggestion:
> * Define keeping sparse allocation block by APNIC as two years.
> If an LIR doesn't come back for subsequent allocation after two
> years, sparse allocation block will be released.
>
> We are against the proposal as it is, but support the proposal if the
> suggested changes can be made.
>
>
> Izumi/JPNIC
>
> (2012/02/02 10:24), Andy Linton wrote:
>> Dear SIG members
>>
>> The proposal "prop-102-v001: Sparse allocation guidelines for IPv6
>> resource allocations" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.
>>
>> It will be presented at the Policy SIG at APNIC 33 in New Delhi, India,
>> Thursday, 1 March 2012.
>>
>> We invite you to review and comment on the proposal on the mailing list
>> before the meeting.
>>
>> The comment period on the mailing list before an APNIC meeting is an
>> important part of the policy development process. We encourage you to
>> express your views on the proposal:
>>
>> - Do you support or oppose this proposal?
>> - Does this proposal solve a problem you are experiencing? If
>> so, tell the community about your situation.
>> - Do you see any disadvantages in this proposal?
>> - Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear?
>> - What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more
>> effective?
>>
>> Information about this and other policy proposals is available from:
>>
>> http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals
>>
>> Andy, Skeeve, Masato
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> prop-102-v001: Sparse allocation guidelines for IPv6 resource
>> allocations
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>> Author: Dean Pemberton
>> <dean at deanpemberton dot com>
>>
>> Co-authors: None at present
>> Co-authors welcome
>>
>>
>>
>> 1. Introduction
>> ----------------
>>
>> This proposal formalises the current use of a sparse allocation strategy
>> when allocating IPv6 resources from the APNIC free pool. This also has
>> the effect of bringing the algorithm and its parameters under the
>> oversight of the APNIC policy development process.
>>
>> The proposal also seeks to give members some assurance that if they are
>> able to show a growth plan for 5 years upon applying for an initial 2
>> year assignment, that subsequent assignments will be allocated from a
>> sufficiently sized, sparsely allocated block.
>>
>>
>> 2. Summary of the current problem
>> ----------------------------------
>>
>> Large networks and economies are requesting blocks of IPv6 space larger
>> than the current allocation models allow. At present the allocation
>> strategies look at a timeline on the order of 1-2 years. Organisations
>> are now having to look to a 5-10 year time-frame when deploying large
>> IPv6 networks.
>>
>> They are understandably concerned about their ability to secure access
>> to 5-10 years of aggregatable address space if they are only allocated
>> on 1-2 year needs basis. We have seen requests in proposals such as
>> prop-98, prop-99 and prop-100, which seek to find ways to allow for
>> larger allocations or reserve an amount of space for future
>> organisational use. All of these proposals seek to make large changes to
>> the way that IPv6 addresses are allocated by APNIC in order to address
>> these legitimate concerns.
>>
>> It would seem however that there is an alternative solution which would
>> only require a small change to current operating procedure.
>>
>> At present the APNIC operating procedure is for hostmasters to use a
>> method of sparse-allocation when allocating IPv6 addresses out of the
>> APNIC free pool. An in depth discussion of sparse-allocation, and indeed
>> the implementation used by APNIC is beyond the scope of this proposal.
>>
>> Suffice to say however, that sparse-allocation allows for allocations to
>> be given from a larger pool in such a way that members can request
>> neighbouring allocations at a later date and aggregate these together in
>> to a larger routable allocation.
>>
>> While this has been APNIC operating procedure for some time, it is not
>> subject to oversight by any particular APNIC policy. As such the exact
>> algorithm used as well as the parameters around this sparse-allocation
>> algorithm are not open to member input or adjustment through the policy
>> development process.
>>
>> While members may surmise that a neighbouring allocation may be waiting
>> for them should they need it, this is not guarenteed and therefore can
>> not be used as part of the members future planning process.
>>
>>
>> 3. Situation in other RIRs
>> ---------------------------
>>
>> Unknown at this point - Investigation under way
>>
>>
>> 4. Details
>> -----------
>>
>> This proposal seeks to make the following additions/changes to APNIC
>> policy
>>
>> 1. Mandate the use of sparse allocation when allocating IPv6
>> resources from APNIC address pools
>>
>> 2. Publish the details of the sparse allocation algorithm and
>> ensure that it is able to be debated through the existing policy
>> development framework.
>>
>> 3. Ensure that if a member can show a growth plan for the next 5
>> years that this amount is sparsely allocated when an allocation
>> is made under existing apnic-089-v010 guidelines.
>>
>>
>> 5. Pros/Cons
>> -------------
>>
>> Advantages:
>>
>> - APNIC Members are able to ensure that they will receive
>> aggregatable blocks within a 5 year growth projection. They can
>> use this surety in their internal network planning processes.
>>
>> - APNIC Members will have the surety that the current sparse
>> allocation mechanism will continue to be used.
>>
>> - Rather than simply providing a member with an allocation of 5
>> years worth of space which may go unused due to imprecise
>> planning. Under this proposal, the majority of the space remains
>> in the APNIC free pool and can be reallocated after the 5 year
>> sparse allocation window expires.
>>
>> Disadvantages:
>>
>> - It is possible that this proposal may require APNIC to keep a
>> larger pool in reserve that previously. This could be modelled
>> using information from the secretariat.
>>
>>
>> 6. Effect on APNIC Members
>> -------------------
>>
>> APNIC members would be able to see the published details of the sparse
>> allocation policy used by APNIC to allocate IPv6 resources from its
>> address pool.
>>
>> APNIC members would apply for address space much like they do today and
>> an allocation would be made under the same rules as apnic-089-v010. The
>> only different would be that if the member can show a growth estimate
>> for up to 5 years, APNIC will allocate their resources from a sparse
>> allocation to accommodate this growth and future resource requests.
>>
>>
>> 7. Effect on NIRs
>> ------------------
>>
>> The policy would apply when NIRs request address space from APNIC
>> The proposal allows NIRs to choose when to adopt this policy for their
>> Members.
>> * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
>> _______________________________________________
>> sig-policy mailing list
>> sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net
>> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
>
> * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
> _______________________________________________
> sig-policy mailing list
> sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net
> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
--
Regards,
Dean