Terence,

May I ask whether you consider that the ARIN criteria adequately meet your concerns? For example, if I cut and paste the ARIN criteria (especially the "2000 addresses or 200 /64s" criteria), would that be sufficient gain your support for the proposal?

Regards, David

At 12:32 PM 9/03/2012, Terence Zhang YH wrote:
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 -----
From: Owen DeLong
To: Terence Zhang YH
Cc: Dean Pemberton ; Randy Whitney ; sig-policy@apnic.net
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 -----
From: Dean Pemberton
To: Randy Whitney
Cc: sig-policy@apnic.net
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.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.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy