[sig-policy]Request to delay finalizing addressing proposals
with three proposals relating to IPv6 address allocations:
- Documentation Prefix for IPv6
- Experimental Allocations (IPv6/IPv4/ASNs)
- Critical Infrastructure Assignments (IPv4/IPv6)
We would like to request that APNIC temporarily delay considering
these policies finalized, in order for the IETF to have additional
time to study these issues and better coordinate with APNIC on topics
relating to the allocation of IPv6 address space for purposes other
than global unicast routing for LIRs and NIRs. We believe the IETF may
have relevant input to provide on these topics, but we have not
reviewed them because we were unaware of them.
Our request should not be taken as an indication that we are
necessarily against any particular policy, but rather, we believe more
time is needed to ensure that the policy proposals have received
adequate engineering review from folk in the IETF community, but who
do not necessarily follow IPv6 issues taking place within the RIRs.
With regards to the policy proposal:
Documentation Prefix for IPv6
http://www.apnic.net/meetings/14/sigs/policy/minutes.html#7
It should be noted that a similar proposal is currently a topic of
discussion within the IETF IPv6 Working Group. That a similar proposal
had been made within APNIC is apparently unknown to the IPv6 WG. It
should also be noted that while there seems to be agreement that an
allocation for documentation purposes is needed, there is still
on-going discusion with regards to how large the actual allocation
should be. In apparent contrast to the APNIC proposal, there is some
feeling that a larger allocation than a /32 is appropriate. We believe
it would be advantageous to have more general agreement on the
requirements for an IPv6 documentation allocation, prior to one
actually being made.
We also understand that there are also proposals on the topics of:
- Experimental Allocations (IPv6/IPv4/ASNs)
- Critical Infrastructure Assignments (IPv4/IPv6)
We have not had a chance to study these in detail and request that
their approval also be delayed, in order for the IETF community to
have a chance to study the issues more carefully. Additional time will
allow the IETF, IESG and IAB the opportunity to review these topics
and possibly provide a more formal statement, if they believe one is
needed after having reviewed the proposals.
Related documents that may be of interest:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-narten-ipv6-iana-considerations-00.txt
(See Sections 2.4 and 3 in particular)
http://psg.com/~randy/draft-ymbk-sparse-v6-allocation-00.txt
http://psg.com/~randy/draft-ymbk-sparse-v6-allocation-00.html
Randy Bush,
IETF Operations Area Director (which includes the v6ops WG)
Thomas Narten,
IETF Internet Area Director (which includes the IPv6 WG)