Re: [sig-policy] IPv6 Guidelines document
Hi Izumi
Good idea. We'll amend the draft document as you suggest.
Thanks for your suggestion.
Best wishes,
Anne
--
At 11:26 AM 13/05/2004 +0900, Izumi Okutani wrote:
Hi Anne,
From: Anne Lord <anne at apnic dot net>
Subject: Re: [sig-policy] IPv6 Guidelines document
Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 11:29:15 +1000
>
> Hi Izumi,
>
> Many thanks for your mail.
>
> Your understanding as you describe it below is correct.
>
> Just as in IPv4, I think there is no strong desire to register hosts in
> IPv6. I think there may be people who register sub-networks (by which I
> mean /64's) for the reasons you state, though of course it is not
> compulsory. (We should also remember that all assignment information will
Yes, I understand. In that case, would it be insufficient to merely
leave the statement below
" * Assignments for networks of /48 or less may be registered,
at the discretion of the LIR and the networ administrator."
and remove the following clause?
" * Assignments to hosts may be registered, at the discretion
of the LIR and the end site."
I felt that by specifically making the second statement while it is
already covered by the first("/48 or less" can be assignments to hosts
as well as /64s), it gives the impression that assignments to hosts
are encouraged.
> be hidden by default in the APNIC database later this year). In terms of
> utilisation, it may be worth adding a note explaining that /64's if
> registered will be counted as a utilised /48.
Good idea.
Thanks once again for compiling the document.
Best Regards,
Izumi
> Best wishes,
>
> Anne
> --
>
> At 02:13 PM 12/05/2004 +0900, Izumi Okutani wrote:
> >Hi Anne,
> >
> >
> >Thanks for the clarification. I was concerned that the operation would
> >be too complex if 65,536*/64 registrations would be considered as a
> >single /48 assignment, but it is cleared from your explanation.
> >
> >Just to confirm, I have put my understanding into a diagram. Please
> >let me know if I have the wrong picture.
> >
> > <Registrations in Registry DB>
> > The case below would be considered as 3*/48 assignments
> >
> > <-----/48------><-----/48------><-----/48------><-----/48------>
> > |--------------||--------------||--------------||--------------|
> > X XX XXX XX XX
> >
> > X= assignments longer than /48
> >
> > The basic idea is that the utilization is calcuated on /48 address
> > range basis as stated in the policy, but DB registration ranges do
> > not necessarily need to match as they are for POCs purpose.
> >
> >I think this makes sense and understand that some LIRs prefer to
> >register enduser assignments rather than making a single /48
> >registration as their infrastructure for the POC purpose.
> >
> >I'm still not too convinced about registering hosts though. The
> >entries in the DB would be enormous if such registrations are
> >made. I'm not sure it's worth securing the DB resources to publicly
> >support it by specifying in the document. At the bottom line, I agree
> >that there is no big harm since it's optional, and it's okay to
> >support it case by case in the actual operation.
> >
> >
> >Best Regards,
> >Izumi
> >
> >From: Anne Lord <anne at apnic dot net>
> >Subject: Re: [sig-policy] IPv6 Guidelines document
> >Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 15:37:57 +1000
> >
> > >
> > > hi Izumi,
> > >
> > > Thanks for your comments. I have tried to answer your question below.
> > >
> > > >-------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
> > > > 11 Registration requirements
> > > > ---------------------------------
> > > >(snip)
> > > > * Assignments for networks of /48 or less may be
registered, at
> > > > the discretion of the LIR and the network administrator.
> > > > * Assignments to hosts may be registered, at the
discretion of
> > > > the LIR and the end site.
> > > >-------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
> > > >
> > > >It is stated that assignments longer than /48 can be registered. Would
> > > >such registrations be taken into account when calculating the
> > > >utilization?
> > >
> > > If they are in the database, then yes they will be counted towards
> > utilisation.
> > >
> > > >If the answer is yes, I am not sure if the needs for the registrations
> > > >are strong enough, especially registering assignments in host basis,
> > >
> > > Rather like in IPv4 today, I think it unlikely that people will
register
> > > individual hosts. People may wish to register longer than /48 network
> > > assignments, but it is not compulsory, as is stated in the language.
> > >
> > > However, where longer assignments are being made, I think it is
legitimate
> > > to make one entry for a /48 that covers (for example) all customer
> > > assignments within that /48.
> > >
> > > From 3rd quarter of this year no assignment information will be
public by
> > > default in the APNIC database - however it assignment information
will be
> > > stored in private in MyAPNIC.
> > >
> > >
> > > * 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
> > >
> > >
>
> * 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
>
>