Re: [sig-policy] prop-057-v001: Proposal to change IPv6 initial allocat

  • To: Philip Smith <pfs at cisco dot com>
  • Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-057-v001: Proposal to change IPv6 initial allocation criteria
  • From: Izumi Okutani <izumi at nic dot ad dot jp>
  • Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2008 18:04:23 +0900
  • Cc: sig-policy at apnic dot net
  • Delivered-to: sig-policy at mailman dot apnic dot net
  • In-reply-to: <47A24F1B.4000102 at cisco dot com>
  • List-archive: <http://mailman.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>
  • References: <F1AD33BD-561B-4F75-A17F-9A9CAAF0C481@apnic.net> <47A14EC8.8000202@cisco.com> <47A19214.90902@nic.ad.jp> <47A24F1B.4000102@cisco.com>
  • User-agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.14 (Windows/20071210)
    • 
      
      This proposal is in fact intended to be most strict among RIRs and not
      the same as Jordi's.
      
      Note that ARIN have changed the criteria once as it was considered as a
      barrier according to Policy Proposal 2003-4. What we are proposing is
      slightly more strict (at least intended to be) than this.
      
      I've made a comparison of our policy with other RIRs' below.
      
      I hope this clarifies that this proposal is not generous compared to
      other RIRs and certainly doesn't intend to give out IPv6 allocations to
      anyone.
      
      -----------------------------------------------------------------------
      1) Ensure that a organization of a certain size with a plan to deploy
      IPv6 will be the target
         --> AfriNIC: show a reasonable plan for making + make route
             announcement within 1 year
         --> ARIN: be an existing, known ISP in the ARIN region
         --> LACNIC: Provide IPv6 services within 2 years
         --> RIPE: have a plan to sub-delegate to other organizations within 2
                   years
         --> proposal: be an LIR with IPv4 allocations and have a plan to
                       sub-delegate to other organizations within 2 years
           (It has to meet an equivalent of *both* ARIN and RIPE's criteria in
      our proposal)
      
      
      2) Ensure that the criteria will not be too lose when native IPv6
      becomes a common deployment
         --> ARIN extended the requirement of 200 assignments (from 2 years)
             to 5 years as OR condition
         --> Other RIRs: No specific number required
         --> proposal: maintains the current criteria as OR condition
                       (200 assignments required in two years)
      -----------------------------------------------------------------------
      
      izumi
      
      Philip Smith wrote:
      > Hi Izumi,
      > 
      > Izumi Okutani said the following on 31/1/08 19:17:
      >> I note a few other voices of support for this proposal on the mailing
      >> list, so I don't think we can be sure that the problem is closed within
      >> Japan. If we also look worldwide, similar proposal was supported and
      >> implemented in all other regions except APNIC.
      > 
      > It absolutely was not! Look at the "Situations in other RIRs" text of 
      > this very proposal. ;-) Even the text there contradicts itself.
      > 
      > ARIN threw Jordi's proposal out - they still require a plan for 200 
      > assignments. The other RIRs have replaced "200" with text including 
      > "reasonable plan" or "must make IPv6 assignments", etc. I've cut and 
      > pasted below. The first para, btw, is plain wrong.
      > 
      > ----------
      > All RIRs except APNIC no longer require a mandatory plan for 200
      > assignments.
      > 
      > The current IPv6 initial allocation criteria (in relation to assignment
      > requirements) in each region are below:
      > 
      >       - ARIN
      >           ...be an existing, known ISP in the ARIN region or have a plan
      >           for making at least 200 /48 assignments to other organizations
      >           within five years.
      > 
      >       - AfriNIC
      >           ...show a reasonable plan for making /48 IPv6 assignments to
      >           end sites in the AfriNIC region within twelve months. The LIR
      >           should also plan to announce the allocation as a single
      >           aggregated block in the inter-domain routing system within
      >           twelve months.
      > 
      >       - LACNIC
      >           ...Offer IPv6 services to clients or entities owns/related
      >           (including departments and/or sites) physically located within
      >           the region  covered by LACNIC within a period not longer than
      >           24 months.
      > 
      >       - RIPE NCC
      >           ...have a plan for making sub-allocations to other organisations
      >           and/or End Site assignments within two years.
      > ----------
      > 
      > This proposal for the APNIC region is the most generous of the lot, 
      > simply saying you'll get IPv6 if you have an existing IPv4 allocation. 
      > There is no requirement that an LIR do anything with the IPv6 allocation 
      > at all. I'd suggest this goes against APNIC's principle of stewardship 
      > and fair distribution of Internet resources, and allows LIRs to hoard 
      > address space.
      > 
      > And then you said you are open to modifications to the this proposal as 
      > long as the modifications don't "give away IPv6"??
      > 
      > Why all the contradictions?
      > 
      > As I've already said, this proposal is completely flawed. It should 
      > firstly get its facts correct, and then it should come up with a 
      > reasonable suggestion for replacement of "200" so that APNIC doesn't 
      > simply end up giving away IPv6 address space to all comers.
      > 
      > philip
      > --
      > 
      > *              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