[sig-policy] Commnets on IPv6 address policy from JPNIC IPwg.
Dear APNIC secretariat,
As responding to APNIC announcements of calling for comments on the
issues related to IPv6 below, JPNIC IPv6 Working Group would like to
make comments to each of those as following.
- Comments Required on Possible Extension Of IPv6 Bootstrap Period
- Comments Required on Assignment Of IPv6 Addresses For Exchange Points
If you need more detailed or further explanation, please let us know.
Comments on Possible Extension Of IPv6 Bootstrap Period:
- We agree to extend the period of IPv6 bootstrapping. However, once
100 sub-TLA address spaces are allocated, we propose that RIRs
make it possible to apply for a new applicant with not only the
bootstrap criteria but also with the general ciretria.
And we propose to change the general criteria (a) to be able to
apply with 'concrete intention to peer (with evidence by other
parties)' as well as 'must have exterior routing protocol
peering'. This is because the current criteria may imply to
break the IPv6 aggregation model.
Comments on Assignment Of IPv6 Addresses For Exchange Points:
- If IXs require IPv6 global address, it should be assigned.
- The address should be assigned from a globally reserved range,
(not in the current RIR's block) and the address must not
be announced to global routing.
- Assignment size should be /64 for one segment IX, and /48 for
multiple segments or a group of inter-connected Exchange Points.
These are because:
- from a view point of 'Internet Exchange', neutrality (independency
on particular ISP) is sometimes important, so it is not good to
obtain address from an ISP.
- And with current IPv6 address assignment plan, neutral address block
(sub-TLA) is too big for one IX, and from the aggregation view point,
it should not be assigned in current sub-TLA area.
Yours sincerely,
--
Tomohiro Fujisaki
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
* To unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe" to sig-policy-request at apnic dot net *