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

  • To: Izumi Okutani <izumi at nic dot ad dot jp>
  • Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-057-v001: Proposal to change IPv6 initial allocation criteria
  • From: Philip Smith <pfs at cisco dot com>
  • Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2008 16:50:54 +1000
  • Authentication-results: syd-dkim-1; header.From=pfs@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/syddkim1002 verified; );
  • Cc: sig-policy at apnic dot net
  • Delivered-to: sig-policy at mailman dot apnic dot net
  • In-reply-to: <47A7C288.7000505 at nic dot ad dot jp>
  • 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>
  • Organization: Cisco Systems
  • References: <F1AD33BD-561B-4F75-A17F-9A9CAAF0C481@apnic.net> <47A14EC8.8000202@cisco.com> <47A19214.90902@nic.ad.jp> <47A24F1B.4000102@cisco.com> <47A2E097.1040307@nic.ad.jp> <47A6543D.5040005@cisco.com> <47A66E87.6020304@nic.ad.jp> <47A7C288.7000505@nic.ad.jp>
  • User-agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Macintosh/20071031)
    • Hi Izumi,
      
      This certainly works for me now! Thank you.
      
      
      (I'm sure some people will whine about announcing the IPv6 space as a single aggregated block, but I think stating that requirement is a good idea. ;-))
      
      philip
      --
      
      Izumi Okutani said the following on 5/2/08 11:57:
      
      Hi all,
      
      
      I've modified the proposed criteria to add a plan for routing
      annoucement within two years:
      
      ----
           - Have a plan for making at least 200 assignments to other
            organizations within two years, OR;
      
           - Be an existing LIR with IPv4 allocations from an RIR/NIR AND have
             a plan for making assignments and/or sub-allocations to other
             organizations within two years. *The LIR should also plan to
             announce the allocation as a single aggregated block in the
             inter-domain routing system within two years.*
      ----
      
      It's inteded to allocate IPv6 to organizations which are equivalent in
      scale as in IPv4 and has a plan to distribute IPv6 to other organizations.
      
      Comments are welcome on whether this criteria adequately reflects the
      target.
      
      
      izumi
      
      
      Izumi Okutani wrote:
      
      Hi Philip,
      
      
      I understand your concern now. If I read it correctly, you feel this
      proposal is too relaxed as it doesn't require any commitment for route
      annoucements/service plan?
      
      The reason why we didn't mention it was because it is already a part of
      criteria c), but I personally don't have a problem about incorporating
      this part into d) as part of two years's commitment.
      
      Let me discuss it with my co-author Toshi to see how we can revise it
      and get back to the list again. Your input was really helpful. Thanks!
      
      
      izumi
      
      Philip Smith wrote:
      
      Hi Izumi,
      
      Izumi Okutani said the following on 1/2/08 19:04:
      
      This proposal is in fact intended to be most strict among RIRs and not
      the same as Jordi's.
      
      Not how I read it. :-(
      
      
      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.
      
      I think you need to update the text, unfortunately. It would certainly be very helpful to have it updated to correct errors I previously highlighted, as, reading it again right now, it doesn't reflect what you are saying here in e-mail.
      
      
      -----------------------------------------------------------------------
      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
      
      Your proposal has nothing about making a route announcement - so AfriNIC is more strict.
      
      
         --> ARIN: be an existing, known ISP in the ARIN region
      
      I take that to mean LIR membership. What's an ISP? ;-)
      
      
         --> LACNIC: Provide IPv6 services within 2 years
      
      LACNIC is more strict - you can't provide services without announcing prefixes.
      
      
         --> RIPE: have a plan to sub-delegate to other organizations within 2
                   years
      
      Same as your's, very very relaxed. No requirement to do anything at all.
      
      
         --> 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)
      
      This is very relaxed. No requirement to announce address space at all, so no requirement to provide services. So yes, I'd say similar to RIPE NCC's (not RIPE - different organisation, not the same community).
      
      
      Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. A lot of history is being ignored.
      
      
      So, basically the proposal is saying: "if you are an LIR with IPv4 addresses and you plan to get at least two customers over the next 2 years, you can get an IPv6 /32". Reminds me of the way that Class Bs were handed out to orgs with more than about 100 hosts.
      
      
      If prop-053 also goes through, than basically any ISP who gets an IPv4 /24 can also get an IPv6 /32 by saying they have a plan to have 2 customers over the next 2 years.
      
      
      Mind you, will JPNIC members understand that "plan to have 2 customers" is actually just a plan, and not a mandatory requirement? I suspect you might want to come along later and delete the word "plan" as people in the JPNIC community may not understand what it means?
      
      
      As I've said before, this proposal is not solving any known problem apart from a mistranslation in one economy in our whole community. If the upcoming APNIC meeting approves it, it basically removes all concept of responsible address management for IPv6.
      
      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
      
      *              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