What I mean is I support expanding the current portable
assignment criterias (multihome, IXP, CI),
but not to replace the current criterias with a 'reasonable
justification'.
Regards
Terence
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, March 09, 2012 12:24 AM
Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-101 Returned
to mailing list and Newversionposted
I'm not sure I fully understand your concern here, Terrence.
ARIN has been issuing portable /48 assignments for a few years now. I think it
is a reasonable minimum end-user assignment for IPv6. Can you elaborate on
what you mean by "a few exceptional"?
Owen
On Mar 8, 2012, at 5:26 AM, Terence Zhang YH wrote:
I don't object to allow a few exceptional /48
portable assignments,
and I don't insist on the
'2-year-expiration',
but I suggest either define the 'reasonable
justification' criterias explicitly & clearly
or put in some safeguarding limit.
Regards
Terence
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2012 11:14
AM
Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-101
Returned to mailing list and Newversionposted
I too support this version of the
proposal
On Thursday, March 8, 2012, Randy Whitney <randy.whitney@verizon.com>
wrote:
> I support this version of the proposal, which removes the
controversial
> 4.E.e Sunset Clause from the text, while leaving the
4.E.d Reporting
> requirement.
>
> Best Regards,
>
Randy.
>
> On 3/6/2012 8:20 PM, Masato Yamanishi
wrote:
>> Dear SIG members
>>
>> # I'm sending
this notification on behalf of Andy Linton, Policy SIG
chair
>>
>> Version 3 of prop-101 Removing multihoming
requirement for IPv6 portable
>> assignments, did not reach
consensus at the APNIC 33 Policy SIG.
>> Therefore, this proposal
is being returned to the author
>> and the Policy SIG mailing
list for further discussion.
>>
>> The author has
submitted a revised proposal, prop-101-v004, for further
>>
discussion on the Policy SIG mailing
list.
>>
>>
>> Proposal details
>>
---------------------
>>
>> This is a proposal to change
the "IPv6 address allocation and assignment
>> policy" to allow
portable (that is, provider independent or PI)
>> assignments of
IPv6 address blocks to be made by APNIC to any
>> organization
with due justification and payment of standard fees,
>> removing
the current requirement that the requestor is or plans to be
>>
multihomed.
>>
>>
>> Proposal details including
the full text of the proposal, history, and
>> links to mailing
list discussions are available at:
>>
>>
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-101
>>
>>
Regards
>>
>> Andy, Skeeve, and
Masato
>>
>>
>>
>>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
prop-101-v004: Removing multihoming requirement for IPv6
portable
>>
assignments
>>
>>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>
1. Introduction
>> ---------------
>>
>> This a
proposal to change the "IPv6 address allocation and assignment
>>
policy" to allow portable (that is, provider independent or
PI)
>> assignments of IPv6 address blocks to be made by APNIC to
any
>> organization with due justification and payment of
standard fees,
>> removing the current requirement that the
requestor is or plans to be
>>
multihomed.
>>
>> 2. Summary of the current
problem
>>
---------------------------------
>>
>> Current APNIC
policy only permits portable assignments of IPv6
>> addresses to
be made to an organization "if it is currently multihomed
>> or
plans to be multihomed within three months." [1] This requirement
may
>> unnecessarily complicate the implementation of IPv6 in
some networks
>> that are large or complex and use static
assignment of addresses. It is
>> therefore proposed to remove
this requirement.
>>
>> IPv6 models tend to assume
widespread assignment of registered IPv6
>> addresses to
equipment throughout a network; so if provider assigned
>> IPv6
addresses have been used in an organization's network, then
any
>> change of ISP would require a renumbering of the entire
network. Such
>> renumbering may be feasible if the network is
small or dynamically
>> assigned (for example, through use of
prefix-delegation), but
>> renumbering a large,
statically-assigned network would be a significant
>> operational
challenge, and may not be practically possible.
>>
>>
Although it is likely that many large networks would be
multihomed,
>> there will be technical or commercial reasons why
some will not be;
>> currently those networks cannot obtain
portable IPv6 assignments from
>> APNIC, and would need to use
assignments from their ISPs, and accept the
>> associated
difficulties of future renumbering if they do so. This
>>
consideration and complexity could significantly delay IPv6 use by
the
>> affected organisations, which is not
desirable.
>>
>> There is a risk that removing the
multihoming requirement could cause
>> a significant increase in
demand for portable assignments, which in turn
>> could cause the
Internet routing tables to grow beyond manageable
>> levels. It
is not feasible to quickly generate any realistic model of
>>
likely demand increase which would arise from the proposed
policy
>> change, but it is argued that any such increase would
only be of a scale
>> to produce a manageable impact on global
routing, for reasons including:
>>
>>
- Organizations would only be likely to seek portable addressing
if
>> they believed it were essential
for their operations, as provider
>>
assigned > non-member agreement, under the
standard terms& conditions and
>>
paying the standard fees applicable for their respective
category.
>>
>> B. An organization will be
automatically eligible for a minimum IPv6
>>
portable assignment if they have previously justified an IPv4
>>
portable assignment from
APNIC.
>>
>> C. Requests by organizations that
have not previously received an
>> IPv4
portable assignment will need to be accompanied
by:
>>
>> (a) a reasonable
technical justification indicating why IPv6
>>
addresses from an ISP or other LIR are unsuitable -
examples of
>> suitable
technical justifications may include (but are not
>> limited
to):
>>
>> (i)
Demonstration that the relevant network is statically
>>
addressed and of a size or
complexity that would make IPv6
>>
renumbering operationally impractical within an
acceptable
>>
business period, together with evidence that dynamic or
>>
multiple addressing options are
either not available from
>>
the relevant ISP or are unsuitable for use by
the
>>
organization;
>>
>>
(ii) Demonstration that any future renumbering of the relevant
>>
network could
potentially interfere with services of a
>>
critical medical or civic
nature;
>>
>> (b) A detailed plan
of intended usage of the proposed address block
>>
over at least the 12 months following
allocation.
>>
>> D. The minimum IPv6 portable
assignment to any organization is to be
>>
an address block of /48. A portable assignment of a larger
block
>> (that is, a block with a prefix
mask less than /48) may be made:
>>
>>
(a) If it is needed to ensure that the HD-ratio for the
planned
>> network assignments
from the block remains below the applied
>>
HD-ratio threshold specified in Section 5.3.1 of the APNIC
IPv6
>> policy [6],
or;
>>
>> (b) If addressing is
required for 2 or more of the organization's
>>
sites operating distinct and unconnected
networks.
>>
>> Any requests for
address blocks larger than the minimum size will
>>
need to be accompanied by a detailed plan of the intended usage
of
>> the proposed assignment over at least
the following 12 months.
>>
>> E. In order to
minimise routing table impacts:
>>
>>
(a) Only one IPv6 address block is to be given to an
organization
>> upon an
initial request for a portable assignment; subnets of
>>
this block may be assigned by the organization
to its different
>> sites if
needed;
>>
>> (b) It is recommended
that the APNIC Secretariat applies sparse
>>
allocation methodologies so that any subsequent requests
from an
>> organization for
additional portable addressing would be
>>
accommodated where possible through a change of prefix mask
of a
>> previous assignment
(for example, 2001:db8:1000::/48 -> ]
>>
2001:db8:1000::/44), rather than through allocation
of a new
>> prefix. An
additional prefix should only be allocated where it
>>
is not possible to simply change the prefix
mask.
>>
>> (c) Any subsequent
request for an additional portable assignment to
>>
an organization must be accompanied by
information
>>
demonstrating:
>>
>>
(i) Why an additional portable assignment is required, and why
>>
--
Regards,
Dean
*
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
*
sig-policy:
APNIC SIG on resource management policy
*
_______________________________________________
sig-policy
mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.nethttp://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy