Re: [sig-policy] prop-073:Automatic allocation/assignment of IPv6
Thanks for considering our comments and revising the proposal.
I've shared your idea with ISPs in Japan yesterday afternoon and no much
feedback so far except the same question as Philip was raised regarding
the need to reserve the space.
Still hard to tell if people are happy and not commenting or they have
other thoughts - I'll keep you updated if I hear more.
I'm looking forward to see the revised version.
Izumi
Terry Manderson wrote:
> 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.
>>
>
> * 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