Re: [sig-policy] prop-073-v002: Automatic allocation/assignment of IPv6
Thanks for your comments. I understand the intention and the details of
the proposal but it's difficult for JPNIC to support it at this stage.
sorry.
The reason is that we don't really feel the needs to change allocation
criteria if the motivation is to promote IPv6 deployment. We feel we
should remove barriers for those who need allocations if there are any,
but not to make allocations easier for promotion.
We'd be willing to support it if we can confirm this proposal helps
address barriers for those who need space.
We'd like to see opinions from ISPs in Japan as well before finally
making up our mind though.
(no much comments so far and not sure if that means too shy to
speak/don't care/actually support it but haven't said anything...etc)
I'll also comment inline below.
Andy Linton wrote:
> Izumi,
>
> Thanks for taking the time to consider our proposal and making these
> useful comments. I have a number of points that I'll insert below at the
> relevant sections.
>
> andy
>
>
> Izumi Okutani wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> I'd like to remind readers that the comments about possible advantages
> are *not* part of the proposal - we are keen to avoid any idea that we
> want to say how the implementation might work.
right. thanks for clarifying.
(in case i wasn't clear, i meant to say replacing the word "reservation"
would make it easier to support the proposal.)
>>> 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)
>
> Our proposal is entitled 'Automatic allocation/assignment ofIPv6' so it
> should be no surprise that we are suggesting something "Automatic"!
:-) true. totally assumed this concept was revised in the second version
but understand it's still active. okay.
> We are not saying that there should be 'automatic allocation without
> needs', In Section 2 we say:
>
> --
> The authors believe that the current APNIC processes recognize that an
> entity which has satisfied IPv4 criteria has done enough work to be
> assessed for IPv6 resources.
> --
>
> Members who would apply under this proposal have already demonstrated
> their 'need' - they've justified the allocation of the IPv4 space and
> they now see that they *need* to number their networks with IPv6 addresses.
>
> So we're asking that the Secretariat look at what a member already has,
> decide that the member would get *if* they asked for IPv6 resources and
> *when* the member asks the systems says "yes".
yes. i understand.
the issue i have with the phrase "pre-approved" is, it "approves"
allocation before actually being requested. (even if actual allocation
is made after the member asks for the space, and IPv4 allocation is
considered as justification)
i'd be more comfortable without this phrase, for example:
---
4.4 APNIC members can request IPv6 address block be allocated/assigned
to their member account via a simple mechanism in existing APNIC on-line
systems.
---
>> 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.
>
> There's something strange about our policy if it says a member who
> qualifies for an allocation of a very limited resource, IPv4, gets the
> minimum allocation size of a /22 but the same member shouldn't get an
> allocation of the IPv6 minimum size of a /32!
how i interpret the policy is that's because they can apply for portable
assignment in IPv6. /48 (or other prefixes smaller than /32) should be
large enough for most organizations - i don't see why they need an
allocation if they don't make assignments to other organizations.
they won't qualify if the network is single homed but i suppose they can
receive an assignment from the upstream?
> Note that the APNIC EC put the cost of having an IPv4 /22 as $1994 and
> the cost of an IPv6 /32 as $1994 so they see the two things as having
> the same monetary value
>
>> This will mean some endsites receive /48s and others receive /32s, while
>> most of them can live with /48s.
>
> In the IPv4 world most people could live with a /28 from their upstream
> provider and heavy use of NAT. We don't use that as a reason to limit
> IPv4 addresses.
sure. and i'm not suggesting NAT. i also think it's okay for
organizations to receive assigments shorter than /48 (e.g. /43, /39, etc).
allowing IPv6 allocations endsites with IPv4 allocations would create
inconsistency like:
a network with 2,000 hosts and receive IPv4 allocation -->/32
a network with 2,000 hosts and without IPv4 allocations -->/48
>> 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)
>
> I don't think that we envisage a simple web page on MyAPNIC that simply
> said "click here to get IPv6 addresses" - there'd obviously be a set of
> Terms and Conditions that a member would agree to. I think that the
> design of the interface in MyAPNIC is an implementation issue we should
> leave to the Secretariat.
i agree about leaving interface in MyAPINIC to the choice of the
secretariat.
i'm interested to hear if people feel we should make allocations to
those who make assignments to other organizations (i.e. not endsites),
or okay as long as they receive IPv4 allocations.
It would seem to me like quite a big change in the concept from the
current policy.
izumi