Re: [sig-policy] prop-073-v003: Automatic allocation/assignment of IPv6
[Terry, Andy, when speaking to you yesterday, I hadn't realised that
a third revision of this proposal had been posted. My comments below
are now based on version 3.]
My comments on the proposal are:
>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.
I support the principle encapsulated that if you are a current APNIC
member and have currently registered IPv4 space, then you are
automatically eligible to receive an IPv6 block. (But as long as such
a block is not automatically reserved or allocated to the member - in
case they don't require it.)
>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
As a minimum, base-level allocation, this seems consistent with other
allocation principles (particularly Sections 5.1 & 5.8 of
ipv6-address-policy) currently applied for IPv6 requests. I assume
that relevant members requiring larger allocations than specified
here would still be able to apply for those via the existing process,
if they wished?
> 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.
I'm not sure that "reserved" is the appropriate word here anymore,
given the changes made in this third version of the proposal -
perhaps it should now be "their eligible IPv6 address block"?
>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.
I personally do not believe reservations are required or desirable,
but I am satisfied if such a decision is left to the Secretariat as
part of their normal business of managing the IPv6 address space
(which is what I read from this point), and reservation is not mandated.
So, if the interpretations I have suggested above are consistent with
the authors' views, I believe the latest revision of the policy has
reduced my concerns, and I therefore can now support it.
Terry, Andy, thanks for being open to the revisions of the policies.
Regards,
David