Dear SIG members

The proposal "prop-122-v001: Updating "Subsequent IPv6 allocation" 
policy. " has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.

It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting at APNIC 44 which will 
be held in Taichung, Taiwan on Wednesday and Thursday, 14 & 15 September 
2017.

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 proposal is available at:

    http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-122

Regards

Sumon, Ching-Heng, Bertrand
APNIC Policy SIG Chairs


------------------------------------------------------------------------

prop-122-v001: Updating ���Subsequent IPv6 allocation��� policy

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposer:       Jordi Palet Martinez 
                jordi.palet@consulintel.es

Problem Statement
-----------------
If we reach consensus on the Updating "Initial IPv6 allocation"
policy, it is necessary to align the text of the subsequent allocations,
in order to be coherent and not discriminate LIRs with existing
allocations.

If consensus on that policy proposal is not reached, this proposal also
allows LIRs with existing allocations a better justification of their
new needs and not limited to a 2 years period.

The actual policy text (9.3.4. Size of subsequent allocation) is
assuming that an LIR will need just doubling his actual block, and then
states the possibility of more space providing the relevant
documentation. However, it is limiting that to a two-years period.


Objective of policy change
--------------------------
To make sure that the subsequent IPv6 allocation policy is synchronized
with the initial allocation one.


Situation in other regions
--------------------------
Both RIPE and LACNIC have approved equivalent changes.


Proposed policy solution
------------------------
Change some of the actual text as follows.


Actual text:

9.3.4. Size of subsequent allocation

When an organization has achieved an acceptable utilization for its
allocated address space, it is immediately eligible to obtain an
additional allocation that results in a doubling of the address space
allocated to it. Where possible, except where separate disaggregated
ranges are requested for multiple discrete networks, the allocation will
be made from an adjacent address block, meaning that its existing
allocation is extended by one bit to the left.

If an organization needs more address space, it must provide
documentation justifying its requirements for a two-year period. The
allocation made will be based on this requirement.


New text:

9.3.4. Size of subsequent allocation

When an organization has achieved an acceptable utilization for its
allocated address space, it is immediately eligible to obtain an
additional allocation that results in a doubling of the address space
allocated to it. 

Where possible, except where separate disaggregated ranges are requested
for multiple discrete networks, the allocation will be made from an
adjacent address block, meaning that its existing allocation is extended
by one bit to the left.

If an organization needs more address space, it must provide
documentation justifying its new requirements. The allocation size, will
be based on the new needs (the number of users, the extent of the
organisation's infrastructure, the hierarchical and geographical
structuring of the organisation, the segmentation of infrastructure for
security and the planned longevity of the allocation).


Advantages of the proposal
--------------------------
Fulfilling the objective above indicated.


Disadvantages of the proposal
-----------------------------
Possible abuse of the policy, which may be done equally creating new
LIRs, and it is expected that the evaluation process of a request from
APNIC will avoid it.


Impact on resource holders
--------------------------
None.


References
----------
Links to the RIPE and LACNIC texts on request.







_______________________________________________
Sig-policy-chair mailing list
Sig-policy-chair@apnic.net
https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy-chair