Re: [sig-policy] prop-073:Automatic allocation/assignment of IPv6
Izumi, Phil, and Colleagues,
Thanks for your feedback.. So speaking as myself alone and not for nor
on behalf of my co-author (he is busy).
I note that the main issue appears to be the allocation without
asking... I can accept that in the context of the current definition
of 'address management' [1], while I tend to disagree with the
tactical implications of it, I would prefer to tackle the larger
strategic issue.
My desire is to make the process as simple as possible for anyone who
has IPv4 to get IPv6, using their existing v4 allocation as enough
justification to be allocated an appropriate sized IPv6 prefix in the
constructs of their existing membership and fee tier.
By simple, I think a single "click here to receive allocation" in
MyAPNIC is perfectly achievable.
In this way, the prefix is allocated only when requested by the
member. (satisfying the "want" critique)
It removes almost every effort barrier to getting IPv6. (Almost
satisfying my desires)
It allows the secretariat to use this as another vector (thanks Randy)
to communicate with CEOs/CTOs as to the need and ease of going to IPv6.
It doesn't artificially bloat the routing table as the member said
"yes, give it to me".
So, if we were to revise the proposal and issue a new version, would
you be (more) comfortable with the premise:
* APNIC reserves, but not allocate, a v6 prefix for each member who
holds v4 commensurate with the metrics in prop-073. [2]
* The prefix is only allocated to a member account when a member
requests it via an online "button".
* The secretariat communicates with CEOs/CTOs/the region as to the
new ease of v6 allocation.
I urge you to review the existing policies and justification required
by a member to get v6 at
http://www.apnic.net/policy/ipv6-address-policy
section 5.
As a slightly off topic question to the secretariat, how many prefixes
have been issued and then reclaimed under section 5.8.1?
[1] I strongly believe that what we know as 'address management' will
rapidly change in about 683 days (http://inetcore.com/project/ipv4ec/index_en.html
).
[2] programatically this could be done at allocation time, however for
forecasting I add it as an extra item.
Cheers
Terry
On 11/08/2009, at 11:53 PM, Izumi Okutani wrote:
These are major comments from ISPs in Japan and JPNIC.
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.