I support this revised version also, it has reflected my previous concern.
Thank you,
Ren-Hung
> Dear SIG members > > Version 3 of the proposal "Automatic allocation/assignment of IPv6" has > been sent to the Policy SIG for review. It will be presented at the > Policy SIG at APNIC 28 in Beijing, China, 25-28 August 2009.
> > More about the proposal can be found at: > > http://www.apnic.net/community/policy/proposals > > This new version of the proposal reflects feedback from the community
> received on the Policy SIG mailing list: > > - Section 4.2 of version 2 has been removed in this third version > and the subsequent sections renumbered accordingly. > > - Section 4.3 from version 2 (now section 4.2) has been amended to
> reflect the removal of section 4.2 from version 2. > > - A new section 4.4 has been added to suggest that it is at the > APNIC Secretariat's discretion to reserve IPv6 blocks under
> this proposal. > > > We encourage you to express your views on the proposal: > > - Do you support or oppose this proposal? > - Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear?
> - What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more > effective? > > Randy, Jian and Ching-Heng > > > > ________________________________________________________________________
> > prop-073-v003: Automatic allocation/assignment of IPv6 > ________________________________________________________________________ > > > Authors: Terry Manderson > <terry at terrym dot net>
> > Andy Linton > <asjl at lpnz dot org> > > Version: 3 > > Date: 19 August 2009 > >
> 1. Introduction > ---------------- > > This is a proposal to simplify the criteria for a member requesting an > initial block of IPv6 addresses where the member already has an IPv4 > assignment or allocation.
> > Under this proposal, APNIC would reserve the appropriately sized IPv6 > block for each APNIC member that has IPv4 addresses but does not yet > have IPv6 addresses. > > It is further proposed that members holding IPv4 addresses be able to
> request the IPv6 space reserved for them through a simple one-step > process. > > > 2. Summary of current problem > ------------------------------ > > It is well understood that the final allocations of IPv4 address space
> are drawing very close. > > The community and APNIC Secretariat have done much to promote the > adoption of IPv6. However, the authors recognize that the uptake of IPv6 > is less than ideal. As a result, the community is looking for ways to
> promote the adoption of IPv6 so that it can be added to members' network > infrastructure. > > 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. > > This policy proposal aims to further promote IPv6 adoption by > simplifying the process of applying to APNIC for IPv6 address space. > > > 3. Situation in other RIRs
> --------------------------- > > RIPE: > > 2008-02,"Assigning IPv6 PA to Every LIR", a similar, but certainly > not the same, proposal, was withdrawn by the author due to lack of
> support. There had been concern about the impact on member fees and > that by issuing IPv6 addresses that hadn't been explicitly requested > the proposal could make IPv6 a commodity.
> > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2008-02.html > > ARIN:
> ARIN region but we have not identified a formal proposal. > > There have been no similar proposals in other regions. > > > 4. Details of the proposal > ---------------------------
> > It is proposed that: > > 4.1 Alternative criteria be added to the IPv6 allocation and assignment > policies to allow APNIC members that have IPv4 but no IPv6 space > to qualify for an appropriately size IPv6 block under the matching
> IPv6 policy. > > > 4.2 The size of the IPv6 delegation for members that meet the > alternative criteria described in section 4.1 above will be based on > the following:
> > - A member that has an IPv4 allocation would be eligible for > an IPv6 /32 > > - A member that has received an IPv4 assignment under the > multihoming policy would be eligible for an IPv6 /48
> > - A member that has received an IPv4 assignment under the > IXP or Critical Infrastructure policies would be eligible for > an IPv6 /48 > > > 4.3 APNIC members can request the reserved IPv6 address block be
> allocated/assigned to their member account via a simple mechanism > in existing APNIC on-line systems. > > > 4.4 The APNIC Secretariat may reserve prefixes for any or all > qualifying members to allow for a seamless allocation process. It
> is a responsibility of the Secretariat to select an appropriate > reservation schedule, and as such the reservation of a prefix is > not fixed in size, scope, nor time. > >
> To increase visibility of this proposal, the authors recommend that the > APNIC Secretariat communicate to members and others that the criteria > for receiving IPv6 space has been reduced and that the process of
> obtaining IPv6 address space has been made simpler. We recommend this to > show that there is no effective barrier to members obtaining IPv6 > addresses. > > Current IPv6 policies are still available for members who apply for IPv6
> addresses without existing IPv4 addresses, or who apply for subsequent > IPv6 resources. > > > 5. Advantages and disadvantages of the proposal > ------------------------------------------------
> > 5.1 Advantages > > This proposal: > > - Allows APNIC to engage with all IPv4 resource holders alerting > them to the need to start work on deploying IPv6 addressing.
> > - Pre-approves IPv6 resource delegations based on existing IPv4 > holdings. > > - Increases member benefit by avoiding duplication and effort in > applying to APNIC for IPv6 when they have already demonstrated
> their network needs for an IPv4 delegation. > > - Removes another barrier to IPv6 adoption by providing all eligible > organizations with an IPv6 assignment or allocation through a
> simple request. > > > 5.2 Disadvantages > > This proposal does not deal with the need to encourage holders > of "Historic Internet resources" to apply for IPv6 address space.
> > > 6. Effect on APNIC members > --------------------------- > > 6.1 Fees > > No member's fees will increase as a result of this proposal > because under the APNIC fee schedule, assessed address fees
> are the greater of the IPv4 and IPv6 fees. This proposal was > careful to ensure that IPv6 delegations would not increase a > member's annual fees (based on the recently revised APNIC fee
> structure) > > > 6.2 Responsibility > > A member would acquire the responsibility to manage > and maintain a IPv6 allocation in the APNIC registry framework. >
> > 6.3 Address/Internet number resource consumption > > There are about 1300 current APNIC members that do not hold an IPv6 > allocation. Allocating a /32 to each of these members would result
> in a maximum of /22 to /21 of IPv6 address space allocated if
> all 1300 members requested space. > > The actual allocation would be less than this as some members would > receive a /48. > > > 7. Effect on NIRs > ------------------
> > The impact on any NIR would depend if the NIR adopts this proposal for > their constituency. > > * 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
> -- Ren-Hung Hwang Professor Dept. of Computer Science & Information Engineering National Chung Cheng Univ. Chia-Yi, Taiwan, 621 http://exodus.cs.ccu.edu.tw/~rhhwang
WebOffice: http://mmc.elearning.ccu.edu.tw/home/rhhwang