Re: [sig-policy] prop-073:Automatic allocation/assignment of IPv6
It's a bit of a long list (apology for a long read) but I wanted to
share live comments rather than simple summary. Hope you can get more
direct idea behind each comments.
izumi
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
General feeling:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
+ People don't deny the needs of IPv6 experience but not sure if this
proposal helps
+ One comment strongly against it
+ Some see issues but still remain open about the postion
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment A:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do not support it at all.
It reminds me of what happened in IPv4 at early stage. We can till have
testing experience with longer prefix (no need to be /32s or /48s)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment B:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Should consider about impact on routing table.
It is already growing rapidly after change in initial allocation criteria.
http://bgp.potaroo.net/v6/as2.0/index.html
If the table grows as a result of the actual use, it's okay. My concern
is that people may start announcing space with no more reason than they
have IPv6 space and to play with (without real use/needs in their network)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment C:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Neither support nor against at this stage.
I'll filter the automatically allocated/assigned(to address routing
table issue), so please share the range if this proposal gets passed.
There had been cases in the past where no concrete needs at the time of
deployment has later been helpful, so still keeping an open mind.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment D:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
How easy is it to apply for allocation if you initiall want to start out
as testing, and consider commercial service, *if* the testing is successful?
If APNIC is quite strict about it (do not allow allocation without
concrete plan of commercial service, etc), and ISPs must put lots of
efforts in developing service plan, then this proposal may help progress
the situation in some way.
If we can receive allocations by simply demontration intention and plan(
e.g, no sure about conrete no. of customers but will transfer to IPv6
within 2 years), then no need to have this proposal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
JPNIC
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Against this proposal. It would be a better approach to review the
current allocation/portable assignment criteria if people who need space
cannnot obtain it.
No need to distribute space to those who don't ask for it.
(which is against the principle of address management)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Izumi Okutani wrote:
> Terry Manderson wrote:
>>> I haven't seen anything in the proposal that will help persuade people
>>> to deploy IPv6. Please point me to the appropriate paragraphs.
>>>
>> Indeed it doesn't. Although if you were given something that _might_
>> make things easier for you, wouldn't you try it out? maybe, just maybe
>> configure an ipv6 interface? see what happens when you add it a BGP
>> session? maybe call your upstream and see if they can route it?
>>
>
> Giving more opportunity for experience is a good approach but not sure
> automatically allocation/assigning space will be helpful for this.
>
> In Japan, we organization hands on workshops/seminars, etc to help with
> this issue.
>
> I've also shared your proposal with ISPs here and although there were a
> couple of people that are still open/undecided about the proposal, the
> big question is the same as a number of people on the list.
>
> i.e,, there are more serious issues for IPv6 deployment and not sure how
> applying this policy will help.
>
> I'll summarize major comments in my next mail.
>
> Izumi
> * 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