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: Tue, 05 Feb 2008 16:57:59 +0900
  • Cc: sig-policy at apnic dot net
  • Delivered-to: sig-policy at mailman dot apnic dot net
  • In-reply-to: <47A8074E.5010202 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> <47A2E097.1040307@nic.ad.jp> <47A6543D.5040005@cisco.com> <47A66E87.6020304@nic.ad.jp> <47A7C288.7000505@nic.ad.jp> <47A8074E.5010202@cisco.com>
  • User-agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031)
    • 
      
      Great. Thanks for your input - I really appreciate it.
      
      I agree about the route annoucement requirement. It's already a part of
      the current criteria and we need something that ensures that the space
      will actually be used.
      
      Comments from others is also very welcome.
      
      izumi
      
      Philip Smith wrote:
      > 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
      >>
      > 
      > *              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