Re: [sig-policy] Question on difference between v4 and v6 policy
Thanks, that is half way towards answering my question. My question is really about the data of the end-user to whom an assignment is made. Perhaps the following table might explain it
+----------------+-------------------+
| Second opinion | No second opinion |
+------+----------------+-------------------+
| IPv4 | data? | data? |
+------+----------------+-------------------+
| IPv6 | data | data? |
+------+----------------+-------------------+
For each of the four boxes I would like to know what data the policy states must be recorded in the APNIC database (and then made available by WHOIS if marked 'public'). It appears from my reading that as well as the boundary moving on when a second opinion is required, there has also been a change on what data is required in either case.
kind regards
Jay
1. In IPv4 when an assignment is made
On 11/06/2010, at 7:01 PM, Sanjaya wrote:
>
> On 10/06/2010 10:04 AM, Jay Daley wrote:
>> Hello All
>>
>> I was hoping someone might be able to explain the following paragraph from the IPv6 allocation policy [1], section 5.5.1:
>>
>>>> RIRs/NIRs are not concerned about which address size an LIR/ISP actually assigns. Accordingly, RIRs/NIRs will not request the detailed information on IPv6 user networks as they did in IPv4, except for the cases described in Section 4.4 and for the purposes of measuring utilization as defined in this document.
>>
>> My first problem is that I am not clear on what is the detailed information that is not being requested. I assume it is that specified in 10.4 of the IPv4 allocation policy [2], which is basically the details of whom the assignment is made to but any confirmation would be welcome.
>>
>
> Hi Jay,
>
> The paragraph refers to the information requested by APNIC when an
> LIR/ISP assigns IPv6 address to customers.
>
> In the case of IPv4, APNIC requires that the LIR/ISP sends a second
> opinion request before making assignment above their assignment window.
> It's actually referring to section 10.1 of the IPv4 policy.
>
> In IPv6, if the assignment size is a /48 or smaller, which is the
> majority of the case, no second opinion is required. See section 5.5.2
> of the IPv6 policy for an exception to this rule.
>
> So, in general APNIC would ask less information about IPv6 user
> networks, compared to IPv4.
>
>> My second problem, if I've understood the paragraph correctly, is that the reasoning does not make sense, leading me to doubt my understanding. As far as I can tell the leap from "we don't know what size you will choose to assign" to "so we won't ask for any data on who the assignment is to" is a complete non sequitur. Have I missed something?
>>
>> thanks in advance
>> Jay
>>
>> [1] http://www.apnic.net/policy/ipv6-address-policy
>> [2] http://www.apnic.net/policy/add-manage-policy
>>
>
> I hope this answers your question. Let me know if you need further
> clarifications.
>
> Cheers,
> ________________________________________________________________________
> Sanjaya email: sanjaya at apnic dot net
> Services Director, APNIC sip: sanjaya at voip dot apnic dot net
> http://www.apnic.net phone: +61 7 3858 3100
> ________________________________________________________________________
> * Sent by email to save paper. Print only if necessary.
> * 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
--
Jay Daley
Chief Executive
.nz Registry Services (New Zealand Domain Name Registry Limited)
desk: +64 4 931 6977
mobile: +64 21 678840