Re: [sig-policy] Discussion on IPv6 policy development
There are a couple of things in the IPv6 policy that is a patchwork from
past policy changes.
It would be a good timing to have a comprehensive review on what would
be a good IPv6 policy that matches with the reality of the deployment
for the APNIC region.
izumi/speaking as an indivisual
(2011/08/03 4:31), Andy Linton wrote:
> Dear colleagues,
>
> I've been spending some time thinking about the policy development
> process. We have a process that's been in place for many years and it
> has served us pretty well. Our primary concern over the last few years
> has been the management of the IPv4 address space and its imminent
> exhaustion. To some degree we've been doing that using an issue by issue
> approach.
>
> I'm also conscious that we've had a long time to think about how we
> manage IPv6 address space and it's really only now that we're really
> turning our attention to that. If you look at the recent IPv6 policy
> proposals a large number of them have been about how to justify and
> manage requests for IPv6 address space which are larger than the minimum
> allocation. For example:
>
> http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-083
> http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-087
> http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-090
>
> and we have more about to appear on the agenda for this meeting:
>
> http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-098
> http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-099
> http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-0100
>
> In each case, those proposing the policy change are trying to deal with
> similar but different aspects of the same problem. This isn't
> about discouraging those who have specific issues from putting their
> concerns and possible solutions forward as proposals but I'm conscious
> that each time we put forward a proposal that deals with a specific case
> we tend to make the policies more complex and perhaps harder to implement.
>
> Would it be useful for us to look at this whole question of what a
> reasonable IPv6 allocation looks like from a strategic point of view
> rather than what appears to be the tactical approach we're using at present?
>
> I've discussed this with Terence, my fellow co-chair and we're wondering
> would it be useful for the Policy SIG to consider a working group that
> gathered evidence and requirements from the whole APNIC community about
> what's needed and report back to a future APNIC meeting with
> recommendations that help us to avoid developing policy in a fragmented way?
>
> There may be other ways to do this but would it be useful to have an
> item on the Policy SIG agenda in Busan to discuss this? We'll deal with
> the specific proposals that are being put forward of course but as this
> will be our first meeting in the new era it would be good to spend some
> time looking forward to IPv6 issues at a strategic level.
>
> Regards,
> andy
> * 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