Jordi, many thanks for this information.
Does anyone on the list know if this issue has been raised in ARIN,
LACNIC or AfriNIC (and if so, what have been the thoughts expressed)?
Regards, David
At 06:14 PM 20/01/2012, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:This has been done as well in RIPE, as we had the same situation for somecases. At this stage is just pending of being implemented by RIPE NCC.Regards,Jordi-----Mensaje original-----De: <aanesi@bluesky.as>Responder a: <aanesi@bluesky.as>Fecha: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 13:46:52 -1100Para: David Woodgate <dwoodgate5@gmail.com>CC: <sig-policy@apnic.net>Asunto: Re: [sig-policy] Is the multihoming requirement necessary for IPv6portable assignments?HI David,This is actually a valid concern especially for Pacific Island nations.In American Samoa, we operated for several years before becomingmultihomed. So, while we would qualify now, smaller providers who arejust starting out or who only have a single link to their upstream wouldbe left out.-------------------------------------------------------Alalatoa Aloiamoa Anesi, Jr.Systems EngineerBlue Sky Communications478 Laufou Shopping CtrPago Pago, American Samoa 96799--Ph: +1.684.699.2759 ext 1098Cell: +1.684.258.1098Skype: aloanesijrOn Jan 18, 2012, at 1:41 PM, David Woodgate wrote:I would like to canvass the opinion of this list as to whether thecurrent multihoming requirement for portable IPv6 assignments istruly necessary, or whether it could be removed from APNIC's IPv6allocation policy.That is, should IPv6 portable addresses be made available to anyoneupon request (with appropriate justifications and fees), without therequirement to be multihomed?At the moment, the only option for IPv6 addressing of a singly-homednetwork is assignment from their ISP (as an LIR). This of courseshould be fine for dynamically-assigned networks, or networks smallenough to renumber, but it will pose significant challenges for largeto very large statically-configured networks if they wish to changeISP, since that implies by current practice and paradigms that thecustomer will need to renumber their entire network to a new addressspace assigned by the new ISP.This issue can easily be removed, simply by making portable addressesreadily available to any company, and the only apparent policy changerequired would be to remove the current multihoming requirement (i.e.changing section 5.9.1 of the current "IPv6 address allocation andassignment policy"). I believe that APNIC's standard fees and otherassignment criteria would naturally stop requests from any companiesother than those who really needed this for genuine business purposesanyway (since who is going to pay AU$4,175 or more for a /48 if theydon't have to?), so I don't believe such a change would risk anexplosion of the routing table or an excessive consumption of IPv6resources.There otherwise does not seem to be any obvious value in retainingthe multihoming requirement; so while it may be likely that manynetworks of that scale would be multihomed anyway, it does not seemnecessary to demand it - therefore I suggest it should be removed asan unnecessary limitation, as in some circumstances it could hinderor add complexity to the aim of general IPv6 deployment.I'm eager to hear any thoughts about this idea from the members ofthis list, and I would be interested in working with someone toco-author a policy proposal.David Woodgate* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy*_______________________________________________sig-policy mailing listsig-policy@lists.apnic.nethttp://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy*_______________________________________________sig-policy mailing listsig-policy@lists.apnic.nethttp://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy**********************************************IPv4 is overAre you ready for the new Internet ?http://www.consulintel.esThe IPv6 CompanyThis electronic message contains information which may be privilegedor confidential. The information is intended to be for the use ofthe individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipientbe aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of thecontents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource managementpolicy *_______________________________________________sig-policy mailing listsig-policy@lists.apnic.nethttp://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
* 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