RE: [sig-policy]Request to delay finalizing addressing proposals
I would like to acknowledge your recent request for a delay in the
implementation of 3 pending APNIC policies. After it was received last
week, the request was immediately referred to the APNIC Executive
Council for their urgent consideration.
As you know, these new policies were approved by the APNIC Open Policy
Meeting held last September in Japan, and they have been scheduled since
then for implementation on 2 December 2002 (today). Therefore it is
only the APNIC EC which could possibly approve any ammendment to the
approved course of action, in their role as elected representatives of
the APNIC membership.
Your request has been carefully considered by the EC, and I am afraid
that the EC has found it necessary to decline.
The reasons for this decision are:
1. The policy proposals which concern you were properly approved through
the formal APNIC policy process, and no objection has been raised in
relation to that process.
2. The policy process has allowed public input during the 3 months since
the meeting, but unfortunately your request has been received at the
11th hour, leaving no time for consideration of the matter by others who
may be affected by a change in the announced course of action (and we
are aware of numerous parties who are relying on the policy
implementation as announced).
3. Your request detailed only one specific concern regarding the
proposed policies, namely regarding the size of the IPv6 allocation for
documentation purposes. While the APNIC Secretariat has now identified
the /32 prefix to be used for this purpose, it has reserved a block of
up to /29 in size, to allow for future expansion. The reserved address
space will be released for other purposes if not approved in future for
documentation.
4. Your request did not detail any other specific concerns with the
policies themselves, and as we believe the policy proposals have no
standards-related content or impact, it is unfortunately not possible
for the EC to infer any sufficient justification to overturn the APNIC
policy process.
I need to inform you therefore that the implementation of the three
policies will go ahead as announced, on 2 December 2002. As with all
policies, they are of course subject to review at any time in future,
through the same open processes by which they were approved.
The APNIC EC does acknowledge your concerns, and would certainly like to
avoid such a situation in future. We would therefore like to
investigate some more formal mechanisms as appropriate for liaison
between APNIC and the IETF (and other organisations as necessary), to
assist with information flow in future.
Best regards,
Paul Wilson
for the APNIC Executive Council
> -----Original Message-----
> From: sig-policy-admin at lists dot apnic dot net
> [mailto:sig-policy-admin at lists dot apnic dot net] On Behalf Of Thomas Narten
> Sent: Friday, November 29, 2002 2:11 PM
> To: sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net
> Subject: [sig-policy]Request to delay finalizing addressing proposals
>
>
> We've very recently become aware that APNIC has agreed to go forward
> 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)
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy
*
_______________________________________________
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy