Re: [sig-policy]Policy proposal: IPv6 allocations to IPv4 networks
I just got a post form the secretariat announcing that the session for
proposals was closed. Or do you get special consideration, Paul?
If so, who else does?
Paul Wilson wrote:
> I would like to present the following proposal at the coming APNIC meeting.
>
> Paul Wilson
> APNIC
>
> ==============
>
> Proposal: IPv6 allocations to organisations with existing IPv4
> infrastructure
>
> Version 1.0
>
> Background
>
> The current IPv6 policy allows existing IPv4 infrastructure to be considered
> in requests for IPv6 address space. This is described in section 4.4
> "Consideration of IPv4 Infrastructure", which states:
>
> "Where an existing IPv4 service provider requests IPv6 space for eventual
> transition of existing services to IPv6, the number of present IPv4
> customers may be used to justify a larger request than would be justified if
> based solely on the IPv6 infrastructure."
>
> This policy indicates an intention to consider an existing IPv4 network in
> order to justify larger allocations, however it does not sufficiently
> describe how that infrastructure and customer base should be taken into
> account in making an IPv6 allocation. This policy proposal aims to address
> this problem by clarifying the relevant policy and procedures.
>
> Proposal
>
> The IPv6 policy and allocation procedures should be updated to explicitly
> document the consideration given to an existing infrastructure and customer
> base.
>
> Section 4.4 of the policy should be replaced with the following:
>
> "Where an existing IPv4 service provider requests IPv6 space for provision
> of existing services via IPv6, the existing IPv4 infrastructure and customer
> base will be evaluated, and an IPv6 allocation will be made which is
> sufficient to allow the network to be addressed using IPv6.
>
> Section 5.1.2 should be replaced with the following:
>
> "Organizations that meet the initial allocation criteria are eligible to
> receive a minimum allocation of /32.
>
> "Qualifying organizations may request an initial allocation greater than /32
> by submitting additional documentation that reasonably justifies the
> request. This may include comprehensive documentation of the planned
> infrastructure; or, in accordance with section 4.4, a description of an
> existing IPv4 network which is to receive IPv6 addresses. In either case,
> an allocation will be made which fulfills the calculated address
> requirement, in accordance with the HD-Ratio based utilisation policy."
>
> In evaluating a request under this "existing IPv4 network" provision,
> standard hostmaster request processes will be used to determine the total
> IPv6 addressing requirement of the existing infrastructure and customer
> base. Information may be obtained from previous requests and/or database
> registrations, and additional exchanges as required.
>
> The request and evaluation should apply only to IPv4 infrastructure and
> customers which are intended to receive IPv6 addresses. It is not necessary
> that the organisation commit to a complete transition to IPv6 at any time,
> only that the IPv6 addresses will be used, and that use of the address space
> will commence within 2 years.
>
> NIR Considerations
>
> This policy should be applicable equally to all NIRs in the APNIC region.
>
> Implementation
>
> This policy should become effective in the APNIC region after approval
> through the APNIC policy process, and reasonable coordination efforts
> involving other RIR regions.
>
> * 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
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Be precise in the use of words and expect precision from others" -
Pierre Abelard
"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix dot netcom dot com
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801