[sig-policy] APNIC 18 Proposal

  • To: sig-policy at apnic dot net
  • Subject: [sig-policy] APNIC 18 Proposal
  • From: (Tomohiro -INSTALLER-Fujisaki/藤崎 智宏 )<fujisaki@syce.net>
  • Date: Wed, 04 Aug 2004 14:11:50 +0900 (JST)
  • Cc:
  • List-archive: <http://www.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-policy>
  • List-help: <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=help>
  • List-id: APNIC SIG on resource management policy <sig-policy.lists.apnic.net>
  • List-post: <mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net>
  • List-subscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy>,<mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=subscribe>
  • List-unsubscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy>,<mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=unsubscribe>
    • Dear APNIC Address Policy SIG members,
      
      I'll propose below item in APNIC 18th Address Policy SIG at Fiji.
      
      Please send me your feedbacks or comments.
      
      Thank you.
      
      Yours sincerely,
      --
      Tomohiro Fujisaki, Nippon Telegraph and Telephone Corporation
      
      
      
      ----------8<----------8=----------8<----------8=----------8<----------
      
      Your name    :
      
      Tomohiro Fujisaki, Nippon Telegraph and Telephone Corporation/JPNIC Policy WG Chair
      
      
      Your email address:   fujisaki at syce dot net
      
      
      Names of any co-authors:
      
      
      
      SIG for discussion:	   Policy
      
      
      Title of proposal:   
      
      Expansion of the initial allocation space for existing IPv6
      address space holders
      
      
      
      Introduction:
      
      I propose making it possible for existing IPv6 address holders with
      the initial allocation address space to expand their address space
      without clearing the subsequent allocation requirement.
      
      This proposal has reached a consensus at JPNIC Open Policy Meeting.
      
       
      
      Summary of the current problem:
      
      In the past, many of the organizations had requested for the minimum
      allocation size(/32) as an initial allocation due to the following
      reasons:
      
       + Based on the idea of the "slow start" in IPv4 policy, many
         organizations believed it would be difficult to justify all of their
         address requirements at an initial allocation.
      
       + It was difficult to estimate their needs as IPv6 network was not
         commercially developed. Many organizations requested for address
         space for a test service in order to kick off the commercial
         service, not for the commercial service itself.
      
       + `PROVISIONAL IPv6 ASSIGNMENT AND ALLOCATION POLICY DOCUMENT'
         specified the initial allocation size as /35. LIRs which received
         allocations under this policy were only allowed an upgrade of
         their allocations to a /32.
      
      In recent days, most of the ISPs learned that /32 space is too small
      for the real scale service deployment if they cover their existing
      IPv4 users.
      
      Organizations currently requesting for initial allocations can simply
      request for a larger space as the RIRs actively emphasize to their
      communities that they are able to request for allocations greater than
      /32, which is already a common practice.
      
      However, ISPs with the default address space need to design the IPv6
      service network within the small space untill they clear the
      subsequent allocation requirement (HD-Ratio) for more address
      space. This makes the real IPv6 service deployment difficult,
      especially for large ISPs.
      
      
      
      
      Situation in other RIRs:
      
      none.
      
      
      
      Details of your proposal:
      
      Existing IPv6 initial allocation address holders should be able to
      expand their address space without satisfying subsequent allocation
      criteria if they are able to demonstrate their concrete plan. The same
      criteria should apply as organizations requesting for an initial
      allocation larger than /32.
      
      This proposal does not intend to change the current policy but to
      apply the current allocation practice to existing IPv6 address
      holders.
      
      
      If it is possible to expand the address space under the current
      policy, it is desirable to be documented clearly (e.g. in the
      guidelines document).
      
      
      
      
      Advantages and disadvantages of adopting the proposed policy:
      
      Advantages:
      
      Existing IPv6 address holders will be possible to start their services
      under up-to-date situation.
      
      
      Disadvantages:
      
      none
      
      
      
      
      Effect on APNIC members:
      
      The expanded address space would be considered in the assessment of
      the APNIC membership tier of the organization, on the renewal of their
      membership.
      
      
      
      Effect on NIRs:
      
      NIRs providing IPv6 address allocation service should apply the same
      policy.