Re: [sig-policy] prop-101 Returned to mailing list and Newversionposted
On Mar 14, 2012, at 4:47 AM, Terence Zhang YH wrote:
>
> Hi
>
>> take ARIN for example, I think the main reason they move to the current
>> IPv6 portable assignement criterias is to keep it consistent with IPv4 portable
>> assignment criterias, it's hard to explain to an organization that they are
>> eligible for IPv4 PI but not IPv6 PI
>
> [Owen]
> While I cannot speak for the rest of the AC, let alone the entire ARIN community, I will
> say that from my perspective, that is not correct. The current IPv6 PI policy in ARIN is
>
> [Terence]
> Sorry, I really should not make that comment about ARIN, but I have traced the discussion
> about 'Policy 2010-8: Rework of IPv6 assignment criteria' on the ' Policy Meeting Draft Transcript - 7 October 2010'
> I think it's the chair's language '...policies were becoming more consistent between assignments and allocations...'.
> Of course that doesn't reflect all the AC and the community's view.
> Any way, what I mean is if an organization is eligible for IPv4 PI but not IPv6 PI,
> it's a good reason to change the policy.
>
Yes, our IPv6 assignment and IPv6 allocations policies were becoming more consistent.
That has nothing to do with IPv4 allocation/assignment being more consistent with IPv6 allocation/assignment policies.
In ARIN, we classify IP registrations into two categories, depending on end-user vs. ISP/LIR. End users receive assignments and cannot subdivide them to make reallocations/reassignments to other organizations. They are subject to the end-user assignment policies. ISPs/LIRs receive allocations and can reallocate/reassign space to other organizations using SWIP or RWHOIS. They are subject to our ISP Allocation policies. The two groups are also subject to different fee structures.
I hope that clarifies the issue.
I agree that there should not be an instance where an organization qualifies for IPv4 but does not qualify for IPv6. Indeed, in the ARIN policy for both allocations and assignments, there is a clause that says "if you qualify for IPv4, then you automatically qualify for IPv6", but we also offer several other criteria by which organizations can qualify for IPv6 independent of any IPv4 status.
>> But APNIC don't have that situation, APNIC's IPv6 portable assignment criterias
>> are consistent with IPv4 portable assignment criterias, and I don't see any issues raised
>> about the IPv4 assignment policy.
> [Owen]
> But is that a good thing? Should they be? IPv6 is a very different ballgame from IPv4 and
> applying IPv4 scarcity mentality to IPv6 policy is actually harmful IMHO.
>
> [Terence]
> There is no concern about address scarcity here, the only concern is aggregation.
> Which has higher priority than conservation in IPv6 compared to IPv4.
>
Well, greater aggregation is preserved by more liberal allocation/assignment policies, IMHO.
Owen