[GLOBAL-V6]IPv6 Allocation Policy

  • To: global-v6 at lists dot apnic dot net
  • Subject: [GLOBAL-V6]IPv6 Allocation Policy
  • From: Thomas Narten <narten at us dot ibm dot com>
  • Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 22:31:06 -0400
  • List-archive: <http://www.apnic.net/mailing-lists/global-v6/>
  • List-help: <mailto:global-v6-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=help>
  • List-id: Discussion of new global IPv6 policy development <global-v6.lists.apnic.net>
  • List-post: <mailto:global-v6@lists.apnic.net>
  • List-subscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/global-v6>,<mailto:global-v6-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=subscribe>
  • List-unsubscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/global-v6>,<mailto:global-v6-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=unsubscribe>
  • Sender: global-v6-admin@lists.apnic.net
    • year ago and went into effect in APNIC, ARIN, and RIPE in Summer,
      2002. (E.g., see
      http://www.apnic.net/docs/policy/ipv6-address-policy.html).
      
      Over the last few months, there have been discussions in at least RIPE
      and ARIN about modifying and/or clarifying and/or updating this
      policy. At ARIN the topic was discussed at the April meeting in
      Memphis. See http://www.arin.net/library/minutes/ARIN_XI/ppm.html for
      more details.
      
      After discussion, the specific proposal (Policy Proposal 2003-4) was
      not accepted within ARIN, but there was agreement that the community
      should take a look at how well the current policy is working and to
      consider making clarifications and other changes to the document. At
      the same time, there was a strong desire to see any changes discussed
      and coordinated among the RIRs first, and on this mailing list in
      particular. It seems that although there may be support for some of
      the underlying issues that prompted the proposal within ARIN, there
      wasn't support for the specific remedy proposed.
      
      So, I'd like to ask the community here if they are aware of any issues
      with the current policy. Morever, I think it would be especially
      helpful to focus on describing (and getting agreement on) any
      _problems_ before spending a lot of time on specific solution
      proposals, since it's hard to get agreement on solutions if people are
      sure what problem the solution is supposed to solve.
      
      >From the ARIN discussion, at least the following were raised as
      issues:
      
      >From the policy:
      
      >   d) have a plan for making at least 200 /48 assignments to other
      >      organizations within two years.
      
      There are some who feel that this bar is too high. In particular, the
      number 200 is unrealistic, and some ISPs don't even bother to apply
      because they don't feel like they meet this criteria. 
      
      Another related point that was raised concerns what happens when two
      years are up and 200 customers have not been attained. There is a fear
      at that point the RIRs will repossess the allocation. This fear serves
      as a disincentive to apply for space in the first place.
      
      I'm sure there are other issues that people might have. If so, please
      bring them up!
      
      I think it would also be useful to get feedback from those who have
      tried to get allocations (but were turned down) as well as from those
      who succesfully obtained allocations. How well is the current policy
      working? Is there a need for any changes? Are there any operational
      concerns with it, now that we have some limited experience with it?
      
      Thomas