Re: [sig-policy] prop-102-v002: Sparse allocation guidelines for IPv6 re
It may be a common stance.
If there are others who feel the same then please post.
Dean
On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 12:29 AM, Aftab Siddiqui
<aftab.siddiqui at gmail dot com> wrote:
> Atleast I would support it than. Let Secretariat handle the allocation on
> their own [operational issue].
>
> Regards,
>
> Aftab A. Siddiqui
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 4:23 PM, Dean Pemberton <dean at deanpemberton dot com>
> wrote:
>>
>> Evening all,
>>
>> I have had some feedback while at the meeting that there may be some
>> reluctance to support this policy based on the fact that it places a
>> policy requirement for the use of sparse allocation on the
>> secretariat.
>>
>> Would there be more support for this policy if that requirement was
>> removed and the policy simply required that any sparse allocation
>> algorithm be documented?
>>
>> This would effectively change the proposal to:
>>
>> 1. APNIC must publish the details of any sparse allocation framework
>> on the APNIC website as a numbered document. Changes to this document
>> should be handled as per APNIC-112 "APNIC document editorial policy".
>>
>>
>> I would appreciate the feedback.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Dean
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 6:35 AM, Andy Linton <asjl at lpnz dot org> wrote:
>> > Dear SIG members
>> >
>> > Version 002 of the proposal "prop-101: 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,
>> > on 1 March 2012.
>> >
>> > Information about this and other policy proposals is available from:
>> >
>> > http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals
>> >
>> > This new version of the proposal reflects feedback from the community
>> > received on the Policy SIG mailing list:
>> >
>> > - Ren-Hung Hwang added as a co-author
>> >
>> > - Requires APNIC to publish the Sparse allocation algorithm as a
>> > numbered document
>> >
>> > - Removes the objective to ensure requesters can access space
>> > sufficient for a 5 year
>> > growth program
>> >
>> > You are encouraged you to express your views on the proposal:
>> >
>> > - Do you support or oppose 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?
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> >
>> > Andy, Skeeve, and Masato
>> >
>> >
>> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >
>> > prop-102-v002: Sparse allocation guidelines for IPv6 resource
>> > allocations
>> >
>> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >
>> >
>> > Author: Dean Pemberton
>> > <dean at deanpemberton dot com>
>> >
>> > Co-authors: Ren-Hung Hwang
>> > <rhhwang at gmail dot com>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > 1. Introduction
>> > ----------------
>> >
>> > This proposal formalises the current use of a sparse allocation
>> > strategy when allocating IPv6 resources from the APNIC free pool. The
>> > proposal also requires that the allocation algorithm must be published
>> > on the website, and any revisions should go through a discussion period
>> > to receive feedback.
>> >
>> >
>> > 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.
>> >
>> > The 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.
>> >
>> >
>> > 4. Details
>> > -----------
>> >
>> > This proposal seeks to make the following additions/changes to APNIC
>> > policy
>> >
>> > 1. APNIC should the use sparse allocation when allocating IPv6
>> > resources from APNIC address pools
>> >
>> > 2. APNIC must publish the details of the sparse allocation framework
>> > on the APNIC website as a numbered document. Changes to this document
>> > should be handled as per APNIC-112 "APNIC document editorial policy".
>> >
>> >
>> > 5. Pros/Cons
>> > -------------
>> >
>> > Advantages:
>> >
>> > - APNIC Members will have surety that the current sparse allocation
>> > mechanism will continue to be used. - Through the use of sparse
>> > allocation, APNIC Members are able to ensure that they will
>> > receive aggregatable blocks within a longer planning window. They
>> > can use this surety in their internal network planning processes.
>> >
>> >
>> > Disadvantages:
>> >
>> > - The hostmasters would be required to document and publish the
>> > sparse allocation mechanism. This may have an increased workload
>> > requirement. It is not anticipated that this increase would be
>> > significant as changes to the algorithm are not expected to occur
>> > frequently.
>> >
>> >
>> > 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
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Regards,
>>
>> Dean
>> * 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