[Terry, Andy, when speaking to you yesterday, I hadn't realised that
a third revision of this proposal had been posted. My comments below
are now based on version 3.]
My comments on the proposal are:
4.1 Alternative criteria be added to the IPv6 allocation and assignment
policies to allow APNIC members that have IPv4 but no IPv6 space
to qualify for an appropriately size IPv6 block under the matching
IPv6 policy.
I support the principle encapsulated that if you are a current APNIC
member and have currently registered IPv4 space, then you are
automatically eligible to receive an IPv6 block. (But as long as such
a block is not automatically reserved or allocated to the member - in
case they don't require it.)
4.2 The size of the IPv6 delegation for members that meet the
alternative criteria described in section 4.1 above will be based on
the following:
- A member that has an IPv4 allocation would be eligible for
an IPv6 /32
- A member that has received an IPv4 assignment under the
multihoming policy would be eligible for an IPv6 /48
- A member that has received an IPv4 assignment under the
IXP or Critical Infrastructure policies would be eligible for
an IPv6 /48
As a minimum, base-level allocation, this seems consistent with other
allocation principles (particularly Sections 5.1 & 5.8 of
ipv6-address-policy) currently applied for IPv6 requests. I assume
that relevant members requiring larger allocations than specified
here would still be able to apply for those via the existing process,
if they wished?
4.3 APNIC members can request the reserved IPv6 address block be
allocated/assigned to their member account via a simple mechanism
in existing APNIC on-line systems.
I'm not sure that "reserved" is the appropriate word here anymore,
given the changes made in this third version of the proposal -
perhaps it should now be "their eligible IPv6 address block"?
4.4 The APNIC Secretariat may reserve prefixes for any or all
qualifying members to allow for a seamless allocation process. It
is a responsibility of the Secretariat to select an appropriate
reservation schedule, and as such the reservation of a prefix is
not fixed in size, scope, nor time.
I personally do not believe reservations are required or desirable,
but I am satisfied if such a decision is left to the Secretariat as
part of their normal business of managing the IPv6 address space
(which is what I read from this point), and reservation is not mandated.
So, if the interpretations I have suggested above are consistent with
the authors' views, I believe the latest revision of the policy has
reduced my concerns, and I therefore can now support it.
Terry, Andy, thanks for being open to the revisions of the policies.
Regards,
David