[sig-policy] Fw: Re: Presentation for the Address Policy SIG
I will forward several proposals to be presented in the next
Address Policy SIG in Kita-Kyushu. I expect a lot of discussion
will occur both in the mailing list and at the meeting site.
In the first mail, the below is a proposal about IPv6 essential
infrastructure assignment from Okutani of JPNIC.
Regards,
Takashi Arano
APNIC Address Policy SIG chair
>Dear Mr. Arano,
>
>
>I am sorry for the delayed submission and please confirm a brief
>outline of my presentation on IPv6 policy as a reference for your
>consideration.
>
>I would appreciate it if you could reserve some time at the Policy
>SIG, and if this is possible, I will also submit the discussion paper
>and presentation slide shortly.
>
>
>Best Regards,
>
>---------------------------------
> Izumi Okutani
> IP Address Section
> Japan Network Information Center
> Tel:+81-3-5297-2311
> Fax:+81-3-5297-2312
>
>=======================================================================
>Comparison of RIR's IPv6 policy implementation for Essential
>Infrastructure
>
>I. Current Status of IPv6 policy
>II. Comparison of RIR's policy for Essential Infrastructure
>III. Current Status of AP policy
>IV. Proposed AP policy
>V. Conclusion
>
>I. Current Status of IPv6 policy
> 2002 June Joint IPv6 policy completed
> 2002 July Joint IPv6 implemented by all RIRs
> - A consistent policy applies across the region
> - No major problem in practice and already made 2 allocations
> through JPNIC(Aug 2002)
>
> However…
>
>II. Comparison of RIR's policy for Essential Infrastructure
>
>
> RIPE ARIN APNIC
> ----------------+----------+----------+----------+
> Rt.DNS | /32 | /48 | |
> IX | /48 | /48 | /64 |
> gTLD/ccTLD | | /48 | |
> RIR/NIC/IANA | | /48 | |
>
> Policy for essential infrastructure varies depending on the region
>
>III. Current Status of AP policy
> It is the only region which assigns /64 to IX
> We have not fixed a policy on assignments to Rt.DNS, and networks
> for gTLD/ccTLD as well as those of RIR/NIC/IANA
>
> Does not make sense to have a different assignment size depeding
> on the region. We should also make the policy for essential
> infrastructure consistent.
>
>IV. Proposed AP policy
>
> To make policy for Essential Infrastructure consistent across the
> Region, we propose to make the policy consiten with that of ARIN.
>
> i. /48 should be assigned to IX
> Pros
> - Can be assigned out of /32 reserved for IX assignments
> - all IXs will receive the same assignment size throughout the
> world
> - it is the minumum size to be registered into DB
> Cons
> - Assignments have already been made
> - /64 could meet the needs sufficiently
>
> ii./48 should be assigned to Rt.DNS
> Pros
> - Can be assigned out of /32 reserved for Rt.DNS
> - Can be made routable by posting the address block publicly
> Cons
> - The risk to be filtered is higher than /32
>
> iii./48 should be assigned to gTLD/ccTLD DNS
> Pros
> - Can be assigned out of /32 reserved for this purpose
> - Consistent with assignment to Rt.DNS
> - Consitent with ARIN's policy
>
> iv./48 should be assigned to RIR/NIC/IANA
> Pros
> - Difficult to receive an assignment from a particular ISP due
> to the independent nature of its organization
> - Consitent with ARIN's policy
> Cons
> - No major technical problem by receiving assignment from
> upstream
>
>V. Conclusion
> To follow the spirit of the joint IPv6 policy, we should make a
> globally consistent policy for essential infrastructure.
>
> In order to achieve this, we propose the following assignment
> size
>
> RIPE ARIN APNIC JPNIC
> ----------------+----------+----------+----------+----------
> Rt.DNS | /32 | /48 | - | /48
> IX | /48 | /48(*) | /64 | /48
> gTLD/ccTLD | | /48(*) | - | /48
> RIR/NIC/IANA | | /48 | | /48
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
* To unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe" to sig-policy-request at apnic dot net *