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