Re: [sig-policy] prop-073-v003: Automatic allocation/assignment of IPv6
Thanks for your response.
We'll almost be starting Policy SIG but commented inline.
Andy Linton wrote:
> On 27/08/2009, at 04:05 , Izumi Okutani wrote:
>
>> Andy, Terry,
>>
>>
>> I support the concept of your proposal to make the allocation
>> procedure
>> simple for members.
>
> Thanks for support and your constructive comments below.
>
>> At the same time, I think we should maintain a certain level of check
>> that hostmasters make for applications now to see if the space is
>> planned to be used, and not just because they feel like asking for
>> it in
>> a click.
>>
>> May I therfore suggest to have members to at least explicitly state
>> their usage when they make request?
>>
>> e.g. they will prepare equipment in x years
>> what type of network(native/dual stack/tunneling) they run
>>
>> It can just be a tick in a box style rather than members having to
>> provide information, and I'm happy to leave the details to the
>> secretariat.
>
> I'm comfortable with this part - as you say we should leave the
> details to the secretariat.
great. and we both agree to leave the details to the secretariat.
>> I'm also still concerned that /32 will be allocated to endsites (it
>> may
>> be considered sometime in the future like assigning a /16 for networks
>> that needs a /24 in IPv4 and create legacy space) as a result of this
>> proposal.
>>
>> If this concern is also shared by others, perhaps, this can also be
>> handled as in the same manner as above?
>>
>> e.g. ask the applicant to chose if they plan to make assignments to
>> other organization OR will only be use it within their
>> organization
>> if it's the latter, assign /48 even if they have IPv4
>> allocations
>
> I understand and agree with your desire to make sure we assign
> resources in a responsible manner. Again I think we should leave the
> exact details to the secretariat.
i think this part involves change in what's written in the policy
document (no allocations to endsites), so i'd like to be clear on how we
(as the community) think about this before leaving it to the secretariat.
in the current policy, no allocations are allowed for endsites, but this
proposal will change it. (will allow allocations to endsites if they
have IPv4 allocations)
I'm not necessarily against it but not really sure at this stage if
there are needs for allocations, while we have a policy for portable
assignments for multi-homed endsites.
I feel we should be a little bit careful about changing this part and
implicitly decide we should allow allocations to endsites, if we do.
(no to make assignments endsites as a result of this proposal, without
being aware)
> I think it's important for us to balance the requirement for
> responsible allocation/assignment with the need to be sure that the
> prefixes are routable - if there's any risk that a /48 ends up less
> routable than a /32 then we should favour use of the /32.
sure. i agree.
then again, you are proposing to assign /48 for those with IPv4
assignments, so i assume it will have the same implications?
(assign /48 to endsites instead of /32)
may be filtering problem can be reduced if APNIC assigns /48s from
speficied block and publicly list it.
(APNIC has a block where /48 is the minimum allocation size, as portable
assignments are in /48s)
http://www.apnic.net/publications/research-and-insights/ip-address-trends/minimum-allocations
> Additionally if an organisation gets a /48 as this initial allocation
> and then has to come back to for more space then we've ended up with
> two entries in the routing table instead of one and that would be
> something we want to avoid.
again, i think it will have the same implications for /48 for those with
IPv4 assignments, as proposed in the current version.
(the size is limited to /48)
while i think routing table consideration is important, i think we don't
have that many people to need more than /48 as endsites to be of a
concern in routing table.
again, I'm not necessarily against this part. i just want to make sure
we are implicitly aware we will be allowing assignments to endsites.
my suggestion is:
/32 to those with IPv4 allocations and not endsites
/48 to those with IPv4 assignments/endsites with IPv4 allocations
i'm happy to leave the details to the secretariat on the details about
how they confirm if the applicant is endsites or not.
izumi