Dear all,

I think Fujisaki-san's proposal aims to encourage IPv6 deployment.

Then the point is APNIC should allocate with technical reason or not, when some company wants to deploy IPv6 with the technology which needs bigger IPv6 addresses.

I know technical or operational issue should be disscussed carefully. *For IPv6 deployment purpose*, I support this propsal. Because, this propsal defines the period, it lessens the waste of IPv6 address.

Regards, Norisuke HIRAI

-----Original Message----- From: sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net [mailto:sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net] On Behalf Of Randy Bush Sent: Monday, July 26, 2010 5:46 PM To: Policy SIG Subject: [sig-policy] prop-087: IPv6 address allocation fordeployment purposes

Dear SIG members,

The following proposal, "IPv6 address allocation for deployment purposes," has been sent to the Policy SIG for review. It will be presented at the Policy SIG at APNIC 30.

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 policy proposal is available at:

http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-087

randy, Ching-Heng, and Terence

________________________________________________________________________

prop-087-v001: IPv6 address allocation for deployment purposes ________________________________________________________________________

Author: Tomohiro Fujisaki fujisaki@syce.net

Version: 1

Date: 26 July 2010

1. Introduction ----------------

This is a proposal to add alternative criteria for receiving a larger than /32 initial IPv6 allocation during the initial IPv6 deployment phase (from now until 2013). Under this proposal, a network can justify more than a /32 if the network is using deployment protocol described in a RFC.

2. Summary of the current problem ----------------------------------

Current IPv6 address allocation policy is basically based on number of subscribers the applicant will have [1], but this does not allow sufficient allocation size to adequately deploy some IPv6 protocols. For example, the "6rd" protocol needs more than /32 to implement adequately in an ISP network due to technical reasons [2]. Therefore, criteria to allow allocations based on technical justification is necessary.

3. Situation in other RIRs ---------------------------

ARIN has two related draft policies under discussion:

2010-9: IPv6 for 6rd https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2010_9.html

2010-12: IPv6 Subsequent Allocation https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2010_12.html

RIPE has discussed the possibility of a policy proposal for 6rd, but no formal proposal has yet been submitted.

There has been no similar discussion in AfriNIC or LACNIC.

4. Details -----------

This proposal contains two phases:

1. IPv6 deployment phase (now until 2013) 2. After the deployment phase

It is proposed that:

4.1 In the IPv6 deployment phase (til 2013), networks using an IPv6 deployment protocol specified in an Standard track RFC are eligible for initial allocations larger than a /32.

Requestors must specifically refer to the deployment protocol they are using and the number of the RFC describing it.

4.2 After the deployment phase ends, networks that have received an allocation under the criteria described in section 4.1 above must demonstrate the usage of that address space.

- If the network can justify continued use of the larger than /32 address allocation by demonstrating it is in accordance with the HD-Ratio based utilization policy, the network may keep the entire address block.

- If the network cannot demonstrate that it is in accordance with the HD-Ratio based utilization policy, it will need to return the excess portion of its address block to APNIC.

5. Pros/Cons -------------

Advantages:

- This proposed policy makes it easier to implement a IPv6 network. For example, new deployment protocols such as "6rd" can be implemented easily with this proposal.

Disadvantages:

- Some deployment protocols need IPv6 address blocks larger than current criteria and this might waste IPv6 addresses.

6. Effect on APNIC -------------------

APNIC members can obtain larger IPv6 address blocks for IPv6 deployment.

7. Effect on NIRs ------------------

NIRs can select to implement this proposal or not.

8. References --------------

[1] See section 5.2, "Initial allocation" in "IPv6 address allocation and assignment policy" http://www.apnic.net/policy/ipv6-address-policy#5.2.3

[2] See section 11, "IPv6 Address Space Usage" in "IPv6 Rapid Deployment on IPv4 Infrastructures (6rd)" http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-softwire-ipv6-6rd-10#section-11 * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy