Given the pre-allocation practice already in place, I support this proposal.


...Skeeve

Skeeve Stevens - eintellego Networks Pty Ltd
The Experts Who The Experts Call
Juniper - Cisco - Cloud - Consulting - IPv4 Brokering


On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 12:22 PM, Andy Linton <asjl@lpnz.org> wrote:
Dear SIG members

The proposal "prop-111-v001: Request-based expansion of IPv6 default
allocation size" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review. It will be
presented at the Policy SIG at APNIC 37 in Petaling Jaya, Malaysia, on
Thursday, 27 February 2014.

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 policy proposals is available from:


Andy, Masato

----------------------------------------------------------------------
prop-111-v001: Request-based expansion of IPv6 default allocation size
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Author:       Tomohiro Fujisaki
              fujisaki@syce.net


1. Problem statement
--------------------

   Currently, IPv6 minimum allocation size to LIRs is defined as /32 in
   the "IPv6 address allocation and assignment policy", while APNIC
   currently reserves up to /29 for each /32 allocation. It's better to
   expand this minimum allocation size up to /29 since:

   - For traffic control purpose, some LIRs announce address blocks
     longer than /32 (e.g. /35). However, some ISPs set filters to block
     address size longer than /32. If LIRs have multiple /32, they can
     announce these blocks and its reachability will be better than
     longer prefix.

   - If an LIR needs address blocks larger than /32, LIRs may tend to
     announce as a single prefix if a /29 is allocated initially at
     once. i.e., total number of announced prefixes in case 1 may be
     smaller than in case 2.

     case 1:
     The LIR obtains /29 at the beginning of IPv6 network construction.

     case 2:
     The LIR obtains /32, and /31, /30 additionally with the subsequent
     allocation mechanism.

   - Before sparse allocation mechanism implemented in late 2008, /29
     was reserved for all /32 holders by sequence allocation mechanism
     in the early years. It is possible to use these reserved
     blocks efficiently with this modification.


2. Objective of policy change
-----------------------------

   This proposal modifies the eligibility for an organization to receive
   an initial IPv6 allocation up to a /29 by request basis.


3. Situation in other regions
-----------------------------

   RIPE-NCC:
   The policy "Extension of IPv6 /32 to /29 on a per-allocation vs
   per-LIR basis" is adopted in RIPE-NCC and LIRs in RIPE region can get
   up to /29 by default.


4. Proposed policy solution
----------------------------

   - Change the text to "5.2.2 Minimum initial allocation size" of
     current policy document as below:

     Organizations that meet the initial allocation criteria are
     eligible to receive an initial allocation of /32. For allocations
     up to /29 no additional documentation is necessary.

   - Add following text in the policy document:

     for Existing IPv6 address space holders

     LIRs that hold one or more IPv6 allocations are able to request
     extension of each of these allocations up to a /29 without meeting
     the utilization rate for subsequent allocation and providing
     further documentation.


5. Explain the advantages of the proposal
-----------------------------------------

   - It will be possible for LIRs to control traffic easier.
   - It is possible to use current reserved blocks efficiently.


6. Explain the disadvantages of the proposal
--------------------------------------------

   Some people may argue this will lead to inefficient utilization of
   IPv6 space. However, the space up to /29 is reserved by APNIC
   secretariat for each /32 allocation.


7. Impact on resource holders
-----------------------------
   NIRs must implement this policy if it is implemented by APNIC.


*              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