Re: [sig-policy] prop-111-v004: Request-based expansion of IPv6 default
On Sep 17, 2014, at 7:23 PM, (Tomohiro -INSTALLER- Fujisaki/藤崎 智宏) <fujisaki at syce dot net> wrote:
>
> Hi Skeeve,
>
> Thank you for your comment!
>
> From: Skeeve Stevens <skeeve at v4now dot com>
> Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-111-v004: Request-based expansion of IPv6 default allocation size (SECURITY=UNCLASSIFIED)
> Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2014 12:02:43 +1000
>
> | So... balancing the two.. I support increasing the standard large
> | allocation to a /28.
>
> I have two concerns. I'm sorry for repeating these.
>
> 1. LIRs in legacy space, who has been tackling IPv6 deployment from
> the early stage could not expand their address space to /28. I
> think it's not fair.
LIRs in such a position should be given the following choices:
1. Expand to a /29 and stay where they are.
2. Receive a new /28 with no requirement to return their existing /32, but a polite request that they do so if
it later becomes vacant and encouragement not to allocate new things within the /32.
In this way, I think it can be made perfectly fair.
> 2. If we employ 'nibble boundary' allocation for technical reasons,
> the additional subsequent allocation should be /24, /20, and so on.
> It might be meaningless if only first allocation aligns. To do
> that, I think we need difference proposal since there will be so
> big changes in our policy.
Yes… I agree that this should be done. I would have no problem with that being addressed in a separate policy proposal.
> And one more, ARIN implements totally different address allocation
> scheme, which discussed also in our APNIC region as prop-098. I'm not
> sure but nibble boundary allocation scheme will be suitable under that
> policy.
Unfortunately, that discussion was seriously hampered by technical difficulties and the author’s inability to be present at the meeting for the discussion. One person characterized the proposal as an attempt to tell network operators how to run their networks which was completely untrue. It was, as is your proposal, an effort to make it easier for operators that wanted to get larger allocations (within reason).
Owen
>
> Yours Sincerely,
> --
> Tomohiro Fujisaki
>
>
> From: Skeeve Stevens <skeeve at v4now dot com>
> Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-111-v004: Request-based expansion of IPv6 default allocation size (SECURITY=UNCLASSIFIED)
> Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2014 12:02:43 +1000
>
> | Elvis,
> |
> | Owens position has been quite simply explained.
> |
> | He does NOT oppose the increase in the size of the allocation.... just just
> | wants it done more cleanly.
> |
> | Deans argument is that this will potentially waste additional space.
> |
> | I see, and actually agree with both positions... I like to conserve
> | address space, but Owens point is very valid... even if 1 million
> | organisations took a /28, it would still make minimal impact on the address
> | space over a significant period.
> |
> | But, planning for the future is something we should keep in our mind...
> | but, not at the detriment of todays operations.
> |
> | His point of the number of name servers for reverse delegation for a /29
> | being 8 and a /28 being 1 is quite a compelling reason to increase the
> | default 'larger' allocation to /28.
> |
> | So... balancing the two.. I support increasing the standard large
> | allocation to a /28.
> |
> |
> | ...Skeeve
> |
> | *Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Broker*
> | *v4Now - *an eintellego Networks service
> | skeeve at v4now dot com ; www.v4now.com
> |
> | Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve
> |
> | facebook.com/v4now ; <http://twitter.com/networkceoau>
> | linkedin.com/in/skeeve
> |
> | twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com
> |
> |
> | IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers
> |
> | On 18 September 2014 09:59, Elvis Velea <elvis at velea dot eu> wrote:
> |
> | > Hi Owen,
> | >
> | > what has ARIN to do with the policy in APNIC?
> | > I could also justify my arguments by saying that the RIPE policy allows up
> | > to a /29 per member.. and that policy works very well as well.
> | >
> | > Let's not use other regions' policies to justify disapproval of this
> | > policy proposal. Especially when both ARIN and RIPE have different policies
> | > that work very well.
> | >
> | > I would like to ask you to explain what kind of errors/difficulties may
> | > induce the allocation of a /29 (instead of a /28) in regards to RPKI and
> | > DNSSSEC. I do not really understand that part (sorry, I am not very
> | > technical). If it's fat-fingering you are talking about, that can happen
> | > regardless of the size of the allocation.
> | >
> | > I find it surprising that you oppose to a policy proposal that would allow
> | > members of APNIC to use more IPv6 addresses just because the policy does
> | > not say 'more than more' (/28s instead of /29s).
> | >
> | > cheers,
> | > elvis
> | >
> | > On 18/09/14 09:35, Owen DeLong wrote:
> | >
> | > Absolutely… That is current policy in the ARIN region and it is working
> | > well.
> | >
> | > The reality is that the amount saved by doing non-nibble boundary
> | > allocations is insignificant compared to the likely increase in human
> | > factors related errors induced and other varieties of inconvenience (RPKI
> | > difficulties, DNSSEC difficulties, etc.)
> | >
> | > In reality, there are probably well under 1,000,000 organizations that
> | > could justify more than a /28 (i.e. a /24) world wide. Probably at most a
> | > few million ISPs that would be able to justify more than a /32 (i.e. a /28,
> | > serving more than 50,000 customers), I think we’re fine.
> | >
> | > If it turns out I’m wrong and we burn through 2000::/3 this way in less
> | > than 50 years, than I will happily admit it and help anyone who is
> | > interested draft more restrictive policies for the remaining untouched ~3/4
> | > of IPv6 address space.
> | >
> | > So far, we haven’t even managed to polish off a /12 in any region.
> | >
> | > Owen
> | >
> | > On Sep 17, 2014, at 4:07 PM, Elvis Velea <elvis at velea dot eu> wrote:
> | >
> | > Hi Owen and Mike,
> | >
> | > can you explain why /28 and not /29?
> | >
> | > Why waste so much and use only nibble boundaries? What would you accept if
> | > someone needs more than a /28, allocation of a /24?
> | >
> | > Kind regards,
> | > Elvis
> | >
> | > On 18/09/14 06:24, HENDERSON MIKE, MR wrote:
> | >
> | > Just for the avoidance of any doubt, I completely agree with Owen's
> | > position on this matter.
> | >
> | > To reiterate:
> | > · I can accept that sparse allocations already made on /29
> | > boundaries can be expanded to fill the entire /29, if there is no room to
> | > expand them to a /28.
> | > · I do not agree that any new/ 29 allocations should be made, the
> | > next size above /32 should be /28
> | >
> | >
> | > Regards
> | >
> | >
> | > Mike
> | >
> | > -----Original Message-----
> | > From: sig-policy-bounces at lists dot apnic dot net [
> | > mailto:sig-policy-bounces at lists dot apnic dot net
> | > <sig-policy-bounces at lists dot apnic dot net>] On Behalf Of Owen DeLong
> | > Sent: Thursday, 18 September 2014 6:16 a.m.
> | > To: "(Tomohiro -INSTALLER- Fujisaki/藤崎 智宏)"
> | > Cc: sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net
> | > Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-111-v004: Request-based expansion of IPv6
> | > default allocation size
> | >
> | > Yes, I still feel it misses my point completely.
> | >
> | > I have no problem with expanding the existing reservations which are
> | > bounded at /29 to /29.
> | >
> | > I don’t want to see us move the default allocation in the sparse
> | > allocation world to larger than /32. Larger than /32 should require
> | > additional justification for those blocks.
> | >
> | > Further, I don’t want to see us creating a default at a non-nibble
> | > boundary. For organizations that show need for larger than a /32, I would
> | > support a default of /28, but will continue to oppose a default expansion
> | > to /29.
> | >
> | > Owen
> | >
> | > On Sep 16, 2014, at 6:59 PM, (Tomohiro -INSTALLER- Fujisaki/藤崎 智宏) <
> | > fujisaki at syce dot net> wrote:
> | >
> | > >
> | > > Hi,
> | > >
> | > > Thank you so much for your comments.
> | > >
> | > > Here, just I would like to confirm,
> | > >
> | > > | 1. unrestricted issuance of /29s to every
> | > organization regardless of needs.
> | > >
> | > > I've added some texts that LIRs would like to to obtain a additional
> | > > block larger than /32 need to demonstrate their needs in version 3
> | > > (prop-111-v003).
> | > >
> | > >> From the mail I sent on 1st August:
> | > > |
> | > > | I submitted revised version of:
> | > > | “prop-111: Request-based expansion of IPv6 default allocation size"
> | > > |
> | > > | At the last policy sig discussion, I got concern about address
> | > > | allocation without any constraint, and some criteria should be added
> | > > | to expand the block size.
> | > > |
> | > > | In this revised proposal, I added the requirement to demonstrate
> | > > | need for both initial and subsequent allocations to reflect such
> | > opinions.
> | > > |
> | > > | For initial allocation:
> | > > | > The organizations
> | > > | > can receive up to /29 by providing utilization information of
> | > the whole
> | > > | > address space.
> | > > |
> | > > | For subsequent allocation:
> | > > | > LIRs that hold one or more IPv6 allocations are able to request
> | > > | > extension of each of these allocations up to a /29 without
> | > meeting
> | > > | > the utilization rate for subsequent allocation by explaining
> | > > | > how the whole address space will be used.
> | > >
> | > > # The wording is slightly different from latest (v004) version.
> | > >
> | > > Do you think corrent text is not enough?
> | > >
> | > > Yours Sincerely,
> | > > --
> | > > Tomohiro Fujisaki
> | > > * 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
> | > The information contained in this Internet Email message is intended for
> | > the addressee only and may contain privileged information, but not
> | > necessarily the official views or opinions of the New Zealand Defence
> | > Force. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, disclose,
> | > copy or
> | > distribute this message or the information in it. If you have received
> | > this message in error, please Email or telephone the sender immediately.
> | >
> | >
> | > * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
> | > _______________________________________________
> | > sig-policy mailing listsig-policy at lists dot apnic dot nethttp://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: 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