What I mean is I support expanding the current portable assignment criterias (multihome, IXP, CI),
but not to replace the current criterias with a 'reasonable justification'.
Regards
Terence
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
- ----- Original Message -----
- From: Owen DeLong
- To: Terence Zhang YH
- Cc: Dean Pemberton ; Randy Whitney ; sig-policy at apnic dot net
- Sent: Friday, March 09, 2012 12:24 AM
- Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-101 Returned to mailing list and Newversionposted
- I'm not sure I fully understand your concern here, Terrence. ARIN has been issuing portable /48 assignments for a few years now. I think it is a reasonable minimum end-user assignment for IPv6. Can you elaborate on what you mean by "a few exceptional"?
- Owen
- On Mar 8, 2012, at 5:26 AM, Terence Zhang YH wrote:
- I don't object to allow a few exceptional /48 portable assignments,
- and I don't insist on the '2-year-expiration',
- but I suggest either define the 'reasonable justification' criterias explicitly & clearly
- or put in some safeguarding limit.
- Regards
- Terence
- ----- Original Message -----
- From: Dean Pemberton
- To: Randy Whitney
- Cc: sig-policy at apnic dot net
- Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2012 11:14 AM
- Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-101 Returned to mailing list and Newversionposted
- I too support this version of the proposal
- On Thursday, March 8, 2012, Randy Whitney < randy.whitney at verizon dot com> wrote:
- > I support this version of the proposal, which removes the controversial
- > 4.E.e Sunset Clause from the text, while leaving the 4.E.d Reporting
- > requirement.
- >
- > Best Regards,
- > Randy.
- >
- > On 3/6/2012 8:20 PM, Masato Yamanishi wrote:
- >> Dear SIG members
- >>
- >> # I'm sending this notification on behalf of Andy Linton, Policy SIG chair
- >>
- >> Version 3 of prop-101 Removing multihoming requirement for IPv6 portable
- >> assignments, did not reach consensus at the APNIC 33 Policy SIG.
- >> Therefore, this proposal is being returned to the author
- >> and the Policy SIG mailing list for further discussion.
- >>
- >> The author has submitted a revised proposal, prop-101-v004, for further
- >> discussion on the Policy SIG mailing list.
- >>
- >>
- >> Proposal details
- >> ---------------------
- >>
- >> This is a proposal to change the "IPv6 address allocation and assignment
- >> policy" to allow portable (that is, provider independent or PI)
- >> assignments of IPv6 address blocks to be made by APNIC to any
- >> organization with due justification and payment of standard fees,
- >> removing the current requirement that the requestor is or plans to be
- >> multihomed.
- >>
- >>
- >> Proposal details including the full text of the proposal, history, and
- >> links to mailing list discussions are available at:
- >>
- >> http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-101
- >>
- >> Regards
- >>
- >> Andy, Skeeve, and Masato
- >>
- >>
- >>
- >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
- >>
- >> prop-101-v004: Removing multihoming requirement for IPv6 portable
- >> assignments
- >>
- >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
- >>
- >>
- >> 1. Introduction
- >> ---------------
- >>
- >> This a proposal to change the "IPv6 address allocation and assignment
- >> policy" to allow portable (that is, provider independent or PI)
- >> assignments of IPv6 address blocks to be made by APNIC to any
- >> organization with due justification and payment of standard fees,
- >> removing the current requirement that the requestor is or plans to be
- >> multihomed.
- >>
- >> 2. Summary of the current problem
- >> ---------------------------------
- >>
- >> Current APNIC policy only permits portable assignments of IPv6
- >> addresses to be made to an organization "if it is currently multihomed
- >> or plans to be multihomed within three months." [1] This requirement may
- >> unnecessarily complicate the implementation of IPv6 in some networks
- >> that are large or complex and use static assignment of addresses. It is
- >> therefore proposed to remove this requirement.
- >>
- >> IPv6 models tend to assume widespread assignment of registered IPv6
- >> addresses to equipment throughout a network; so if provider assigned
- >> IPv6 addresses have been used in an organization's network, then any
- >> change of ISP would require a renumbering of the entire network. Such
- >> renumbering may be feasible if the network is small or dynamically
- >> assigned (for example, through use of prefix-delegation), but
- >> renumbering a large, statically-assigned network would be a significant
- >> operational challenge, and may not be practically possible.
- >>
- >> Although it is likely that many large networks would be multihomed,
- >> there will be technical or commercial reasons why some will not be;
- >> currently those networks cannot obtain portable IPv6 assignments from
- >> APNIC, and would need to use assignments from their ISPs, and accept the
- >> associated difficulties of future renumbering if they do so. This
- >> consideration and complexity could significantly delay IPv6 use by the
- >> affected organisations, which is not desirable.
- >>
- >> There is a risk that removing the multihoming requirement could cause
- >> a significant increase in demand for portable assignments, which in turn
- >> could cause the Internet routing tables to grow beyond manageable
- >> levels. It is not feasible to quickly generate any realistic model of
- >> likely demand increase which would arise from the proposed policy
- >> change, but it is argued that any such increase would only be of a scale
- >> to produce a manageable impact on global routing, for reasons including:
- >>
- >> - Organizations would only be likely to seek portable addressing if
- >> they believed it were essential for their operations, as provider
- >> assigned > non-member agreement, under the standard terms& conditions and
- >> paying the standard fees applicable for their respective category.
- >>
- >> B. An organization will be automatically eligible for a minimum IPv6
- >> portable assignment if they have previously justified an IPv4
- >> portable assignment from APNIC.
- >>
- >> C. Requests by organizations that have not previously received an
- >> IPv4 portable assignment will need to be accompanied by:
- >>
- >> (a) a reasonable technical justification indicating why IPv6
- >> addresses from an ISP or other LIR are unsuitable - examples of
- >> suitable technical justifications may include (but are not
- >> limited to):
- >>
- >> (i) Demonstration that the relevant network is statically
- >> addressed and of a size or complexity that would make IPv6
- >> renumbering operationally impractical within an acceptable
- >> business period, together with evidence that dynamic or
- >> multiple addressing options are either not available from
- >> the relevant ISP or are unsuitable for use by the
- >> organization;
- >>
- >> (ii) Demonstration that any future renumbering of the relevant
- >> network could potentially interfere with services of a
- >> critical medical or civic nature;
- >>
- >> (b) A detailed plan of intended usage of the proposed address block
- >> over at least the 12 months following allocation.
- >>
- >> D. The minimum IPv6 portable assignment to any organization is to be
- >> an address block of /48. A portable assignment of a larger block
- >> (that is, a block with a prefix mask less than /48) may be made:
- >>
- >> (a) If it is needed to ensure that the HD-ratio for the planned
- >> network assignments from the block remains below the applied
- >> HD-ratio threshold specified in Section 5.3.1 of the APNIC IPv6
- >> policy [6], or;
- >>
- >> (b) If addressing is required for 2 or more of the organization's
- >> sites operating distinct and unconnected networks.
- >>
- >> Any requests for address blocks larger than the minimum size will
- >> need to be accompanied by a detailed plan of the intended usage of
- >> the proposed assignment over at least the following 12 months.
- >>
- >> E. In order to minimise routing table impacts:
- >>
- >> (a) Only one IPv6 address block is to be given to an organization
- >> upon an initial request for a portable assignment; subnets of
- >> this block may be assigned by the organization to its different
- >> sites if needed;
- >>
- >> (b) It is recommended that the APNIC Secretariat applies sparse
- >> allocation methodologies so that any subsequent requests from an
- >> organization for additional portable addressing would be
- >> accommodated where possible through a change of prefix mask of a
- >> previous assignment (for example, 2001:db8:1000::/48 -> ]
- >> 2001:db8:1000::/44), rather than through allocation of a new
- >> prefix. An additional prefix should only be allocated where it
- >> is not possible to simply change the prefix mask.
- >>
- >> (c) Any subsequent request for an additional portable assignment to
- >> an organization must be accompanied by information
- >> demonstrating:
- >>
- >> (i) Why an additional portable assignment is required, and why
- >>
- --
- Regards,
- Dean
- * 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
_______________________________________________
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy