Re: [sig-policy] Fw: Re: Presentation for the Address Policy SIG
Dear Okutani San,
It is good to see this proposal (and the proposal from Murai San and
Kato San) for the agenda of the address policy SIG.
I have a few queries and comments on the proposal below.
I agree with Arano San that it would be good to have some discussion
on the mailing list before the meeting.
Comments below.
> >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
> >
[snip]
> >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
Just for your information current assignments are from a reserved /32.
> > - 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
It might be worth adding whether or not you plan to upgrade existing /64
holders into /48's - this would currently require renumbering as the
assignments are sequential.
> > 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
I think it is worth clarifying that by gTLD and ccTLD 'essential
infrastructure' you mean the registries (ie. where the machines sit)
rather than the registrars.
> > 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
I think NIC above should be changed to NIR.
> > 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
What was the reasoning behind making the DNS assignments from two
separate reserved /32's? Could they be made from the same reserved
/32 to simplify filters etc.
That's all from me.
regards,
Anne
--
> >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 *
>
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
* To unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe" to sig-policy-request at apnic dot net *