Re: [sig-policy] prop-073-v002: Automatic allocation/assignment of IPv6
On 14/08/2009, at 21:56 , Izumi Okutani wrote:
Thanks for the revised version.
I have a question to Andy/Terry - I'm curious about the reason for
leaving the reservation for each member.
One of the comments from an ISP was that instead of leaving
reservation,
we can simply make allocation procedure simple (which I think is doing
in the rest of the proposal) and it would probably have the same
effect
this proposal is seeking for.
Any thoughts?
I assume there are benefits you see it this and would be interested to
hear what they are.
Izumi, Jonny, Philip and other list members,
The question has been asked in a number of ways about the
'reservation' part of our proposal.
We see a number of possible advantages:
1) allocations under this process could come from a specific range
which could be useful for monitoring the uptake of address space under
this policy.
2) sub ranges of the reserved block could be allocated to different
part of the APNIC region e.g. all the NZ allocations could come from
one part of the block.
3) If NIRs adopt this policy some mechanism will be needed to
correlate information with APNIC. At the moment we understand that NIR
IPv6 allocations are checked with APNIC as part of the process of
giving out the space. NIR reservations to their members could be
preapproved by APNIC making the simple one-click process at the NIR
level easy
However this is straying into implementation and we have no desire to
try to tell the staff how to implement this. By having the option
available to the Secretariat (and the NIRs if they adopt this) then I
have no problem with them interpreting 'reservation' as 'having the
addresses readily available'.
We see the main goal of this is making the criteria simpler and we see
the pre-approval of the IPv6 allocation as part of this. We simply
envisaged that earmarking 1300 possible blocks out of the 'over one
million' /32s would not be an issue.
If we were to modify the use of 'reservation' in section 4 to 'pre-
approved' would that help?
For example:
4.2 The APNIC Secretariat pre-approve an appropriately sized IPv6
delegation for:
- Any APNIC member that holds APNIC-managed IPv4 addresses, but
does not yet have APNIC-managed IPv6 addresses
- Any APNIC member in future that applies for and receives IPv4
addresses but has not yet received APNIC-managed IPv6 addresses
4.3 The size of the pre-approved IPv6 block for the members
described in section 4.2 above will be based on the following criteria:
- A member that has an IPv4 allocation would get an IPv6 /32
- A member that has an IPv4 assignment under the
multihoming policy would get an IPv6 /48
- A member that has received an IPv4 assignment under the IXP
or Critical Infrastructure policies would get an IPv6 /48
4.4 APNIC members can request the pre-approved IPv6 address block be
allocated/assigned to their member account via a simple mechanism in
existing APNIC on-line systems.