Re: [sig-policy] prop-073-v003: Automatic allocation/assignment of IPv6
Hi David,
Firstly thanks for reviewing the proposal.
On 26/08/2009, at 12:35 PM, David Woodgate wrote:
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?
Correct. Larger allocations or additional allocations still follow the
approach that exists today.
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"?
I think that has been covered in the discussions to date, and the
definition of reserve isn't implied to be for eternity as below ;-)
>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.
Indeed, it is left for the secretariat to be able to either reserve or
not depending on how they implement the process of a seamless
allocation function for the membership. I believe it is important they
have this tool available to them should they choose to use it or not.
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.
Thank you for your support.
Terry, Andy, thanks for being open to the revisions of the policies.
Our pleasure ;-)
Cheers
Terry