Hi David,
My concerns about prop-101 is not address consumption but
route aggregation,
I am afraid the popular use of portable assignments will
make route aggregation less possible.
"2000 addresses or 200 /64s" seems to serve the
'conservation' purpose, but not the 'aggregation' purpose,
I think we can
explicitly define the situations where renumbering will
result in a
significant impact, which cannot be aviod technically.
Regards
Terence
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, March 09, 2012 10:16 AM
Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-101 Returned
to mailing list and Newversionposted
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