[sig-policy] Commnets on IPv6 address policy from JPNIC members
Dear APNIC secretariat,
We JPNIC collected opinions of our members for APNIC announcements bellow:
- Comments Required on Possible Extension Of IPv6 Bootstrap Period
- Comments Required on Assignment Of IPv6 Addresses For Exchange Points
Here is the list of typical opinions from our members. If it needs
more explanation, please let us know.
Comments on Possible Extension Of IPv6 Bootstrap Period:
- It is not necessary to extend boot strap period because some ISPs
have already started IPv6 commercial service. But if the period
will be extended, applying with general criteria should be accepted.
- Boot strap period should be extended because IPv6 is still under
deployment. If boot strap period will end at this point, it will
disturb the promotion of IPv6.
- Boot strap period should be extend, but the end of the period should
be clearly defined (one year is appropriate). In the case that there
is not an effect for IPv6 deployment, whole criteria should be
reviewed.
Comments on Assignment Of IPv6 Addresses For Exchange Points:
- IXs may have global IPv6 address because if one ISP connects to
multiple IXs with same border router and has no global address
for each IX, there is a possibility that the address duplicate.
Address block for IXs should be managed by RIRs, and it should
not announced to global routing.
- Global address should be assigned to IXs same as IPv4 IXs because:
- There are some router products that cannot peer using IPv6
link local address.
- Trouble shooting is more easy if the address of IX is clearly
divided from other addresses.
- it makes IPv6 routing information more understandable.
- Global address should be assigned to IX. Assignment should be
a /64 for each IX segment. If IX has multiple segments,
each segment should have a /64.
Yours sincerely,
--
Tomohiro Fujisaki/JPNIC
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
* To unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe" to sig-policy-request at apnic dot net *