Re: [sig-policy] prop-073-v002: Automatic allocation/assignment of IPv6
Andy Linton wrote:
> 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
Thanks for sharing your idea about possible advantages.
2) and 3) are may be something worth considerations but pre-defining
reservation methods might add complications or restrict flexibility to
adjust to changes in membership (decrease/expansion). I think it's
better to leave it to the secretariat.
> 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'.
Great. I think this will make it easier to support the proposal.
> 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?
May be it's just a wording issue, but JPNIC (and probably a number of
ISPs in Japan) is not comfortable with the phrase "pre-approved".
Our bottom line is that IPv6 address block should be approved after
requested - "pre-approved" seems to suggest the idea of automatic
allocation without needs from members. (even if it's not physically
allocated)
We think making allocations process simple for those who need is a good
spirit, but we don't support the proposal if IPv6 allocations are linked
to promotion.
There is also a new point raised from our hostmaster that this proposal
will allow /32s allocations to endsites since quite a number of them
currently receive IPv4 allocations as long as they justify required no.
of hosts.
This will mean some endsites receive /48s and others receive /32s, while
most of them can live with /48s.
If we want to avoid this problem and keep the spirit of the current
proposal, I'd like to suggest to at least make people state if they plan
to make assignments to other organizations if when requesting for /32
allocation. (can be mutliple choice to minimize steps)
Izumi
> 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.
>
>
>
> * 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