Re: [sig-policy] [Sig-policy-chair] prop-099 IPv6 Reservation for Large
debated recently. Maybe NIR input can be taken to decide as to which ISP
should be put in which category/block.
Bye,
Er. Navpreet Singh (FIETE)
Principal Computer Engineer
Computer Centre
IIT Kanpur- 208016.
Ph: 0512-259-7371
Email: navi at iitk dot ac dot in
Web: http://home.iitk.ac.in/~navi
Res: #672, IIT Kanpur
"Progress isn't made by early risers. It's made by lazy men trying to find
easier ways to do something."
> Hi Gaurab and all,
>
> The binary chop algorithm that APNIC Secretariat use to allocate IPv6
> does not specifically reserve space. The algorithm simply maximizes the
> "distance" between neighbouring allocations. As more space gets
> allocated, this distance will be reduced and fragmentation could occur.
> But we could ask for more space from IANA when that time comes.
>
> If any of the discussed policies (prop-098, prop-099, or prop-100) reach
> consensus, APNIC Secretariat is considering dividing APNIC IPv6 pool
> into 4 different 'reservation limit' blocks (each block will be sparsely
> allocated). Something like this:
>
> Pool block Reservation Maximum number
> size size limit of accounts
> /13 /28 32,768
> /13 /24 2,048
> /13 /20 128
> /13 /16 8
>
> While this is more administrative than policy in nature, I would be
> interested to hear the community comments on this idea.
>
> 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.
>
> On 20/08/2011 3:29 PM, Gaurab Raj Upadhaya wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> Hi Andy, others.
>>
>> In the context of this (and the other two proposals as well), will it
>> be useful to know how APNIC practices sparse allocation. APNIC
>> followed 'bisection' (or binary chop) for IPv4 untill it was not
>> possible.
>>
>> I seems APNIC does sparse allocation and reserves a /24 on the
>> one-click allocations, as is evidenced from this small snapshot from
>> published data at
>> http://ftp.apnic.net/stats/apnic/delegated-apnic-20110820.
>>
>> apnic|NP|ipv6|2400:9500::|32|20110501|allocated
>> apnic|CN|ipv6|2400:9600::|32|20100318|allocated
>> apnic|NP|ipv6|2400:9700::|32|20110501|allocated
>> apnic|ID|ipv6|2400:9800::|32|20090212|allocated
>> apnic|NP|ipv6|2400:9900::|32|20110501|allocated
>> apnic|CN|ipv6|2400:9a00::|32|20100318|allocated
>> apnic|NP|ipv6|2400:9b00::|32|20110501|allocated
>> apnic|AU|ipv6|2400:9c00::|32|20090722|allocated
>> apnic|PH|ipv6|2400:9d00::|32|20110502|allocated
>> apnic|CN|ipv6|2400:9e00::|32|20100318|allocated
>> apnic|NP|ipv6|2400:9f00::|32|20110502|allocated
>> apnic|IN|ipv6|2400:a000::|32|20081208|allocated
>> apnic|NP|ipv6|2400:a100::|32|20110503|allocated
>>
>>
>> If APNIC is already reserving a /24 worth of IPv6 address per
>> delegation, I think now we are simply debating whether that's a valid
>> number or not. Or whether it should do binary chop for v6 as well.
>>
>> Paraphrasing from a note David Conrad sent to the RIPE address policy
>> WG, binary chop was also one of the reasons cited when RIRs received
>> the /12 from IANA. [1].
>>
>>
>> - -gaurab
>>
>> [1]
>> http://www.ripe.net/ripe/maillists/archives/address-policy-wg/2011/msg00745.html
>>
>>
>> On 8/19/11 1:32 AM, Andy Linton wrote:
>>> I'm conscious that this proposal has had very little attention in
>>> the run up to the upcoming meeting - one person has expressed a
>>> view on it.
>>>
>>> This may be because people have been paying more attention to
>>> prop-100. I see this proposal addressing some of the questions
>>> raised by prop-100 in a different way.
>>>
>>> I'd encourage you to look at this proposal before the meeting in
>>> Busan.
>>>
>>> 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
>>
>>
>> - --
>>
>> http://www.gaurab.org.np/
>>
>>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.16 (Darwin)
>> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
>>
>> iEYEARECAAYFAk5PRiwACgkQSo7fU26F3X2oeQCaAnMoW2HpGK2V0yKoXag+VowC
>> MXwAniBfIO/K8rdHONnpmLZfbpnFty3E
>> =9/wV
>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> * 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
> * 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
>