Andy,

If we adopt this new proposal which extends the IPv6 transition requirements from the originally proposed /10 to the whole of the final /8 and we don't consider the allocation size we could end up with a policy that's radically different from the ARIN and RIPE policies.

I don't think that's a problem if we make a conscious choice in that way but I don't think it's good that we end up there by accident or omission.

We have considered allocation size very carefully in this policy proposal, in prop-078 version 1, our proposed allocation size is /24, we didn't propose smaller size because we do not want to create longer prefixes in the Internet routing table just because of this policy. Based on knowledge of current Internet's route filtering culture, we believe /24 is the most generally accepted longest prefix currently.

But people raised concern that /24 is too small for large organization's real use, that's why we removed that proposed allocation size in version 2, and keep it consistent with the final /8 (Which is APNIC's minimum allocation size)

We do believe it is possible routing practices will change when we are running out of IPv4, we may have to accept small routes in the future.

My preference is to adopt something like the ARIN policy with a /10 set aside for IPv6 transition work with the remaining 3 /10s used for business as usual or other policy initiatives we might agree to in future.

That's exactly what prop-078 version 1 proposed.

Here is the summary of the key points of prop-078 version1 and version 2 , you can see the different:

Version 1:

Reserve a /10 from the final /8, in order to receive a allocation or assignment from that /10:

1. The applicant must demonstrate immediate IPv6 deployment needs

2. The applicant must either have existing IPv6 addresses or valid application for IPv6 addresses.

3. The applicant can apply for subsequent allocation if their utilization rate is high enough

Version 2:

In order to receive an allocation or assignment under the final /8 policy:

1. The applicant must demonstrate IPv6 transition plan or IPv6 deployment needs

2. The applicant must either have existing IPv6 addresses or valid application for IPv6 addresses.

3. This requierment is not applied to the reserved /16

In short, version 1 has /24 (or minimum) allocation size and allow subsequent allocation, which is similar to ARIN & RIPE's policy(proposal), version 2 is simple, just add IPv6 requirement to the final /8 policy, there for has /22 (or minimum) allocation size and no subsequent allocation.

We will see which direction the community wants to go, at least I feel that most people wish to use part (or all ) of the final /8 for IPv6 transition.

Best Regards

Terence Zhang CNNIC