Re: [sig-policy] New proposal prop-121: Updating "InitialIPv6 allocation

    • To: SIG policy <sig-policy at apnic dot net>
    • Subject: Re: [sig-policy] New proposal prop-121: Updating "InitialIPv6 allocation"
    • From: Satoru Tsurumaki <satoru.tsurumaki at g.softbank dot co dot jp>
    • Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2017 15:33:22 +0900
    • Delivered-to: sig-policy at mailman dot apnic dot net
    • Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=g-softbank-co-jp.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=yAYmUCxpklWfx3ONuRrq9rtfyPF6XkpS969VBWMa8Io=; b=hcXDcMLVk1OydXoaMZQZqP9C33NGhBwb3piEamMFputykp9l6dzHpL53mdtMaEjbo7 9YpZSAUoY4WZw5KDeuFwDXFPM50o6Ti8TXTZ/XKz6QC+rl+Ok82uGbtNUdYkom3SriJA PWDNUGkZUhBVGdgzB8wt9T9LT7Fks1zxscsn0RMdKDPvKP+N7kC9ahdsxrcWKxoRC4IL MSFCA0S6YZzqnQfke+mVGOz40rOIlog4M8wCHBJaHw4O/whk/jKLsItDjk3fBUp1dXZW dhMWwaeMuILjt64msRaRFjf2DZIXiwX5nQATGtVLFaAntrPyxcSIu0Icw4lAAPuEUCDX zpnw==
    • In-reply-to: <1502259540.65126.chku at twnic dot net dot tw>
    • List-archive: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-policy/>
    • List-help: <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=help>
    • List-id: APNIC SIG on resource management policy <sig-policy.lists.apnic.net>
    • List-post: <mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net>
    • List-subscribe: <https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy>, <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=subscribe>
    • List-unsubscribe: <https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/options/sig-policy>, <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=unsubscribe>
      • 
        
        I am Satoru Tsurumaki from Policy Working Group in Japan.
        
        I would like to share key feedback in our community for prop-121,
        based on a meeting we organised on 5th Sep to discuss these proposals.
        
        
        Many opposing comments were expressed on the proposal with reasons below.
        
        * Under the current criteria, networks with IPv4 can receive IPv6
        easily. However, with adoption of this proposal, this consideration
        based on IPv4 network will be removed, and the policy could become
        more strict for some applications.
        
        * Would like to confirm how specifically APNIC secretariat will
        evaluate requests under this policy. The criteria becomes ambiguous
        with this proposal which would make it harder for applications to
        prepare for the evaluation.
        
        * Approach may not be the right one to achieve the objective of IPv6 promotion
        
        * From the current IPv6 allocation criteria, it is unlikely to have
        many cases where criteria. d is being the barrier to receive IPv6
        space.
        
        
        Best Regards,
        
        Satoru Tsurumaki
        Policy Working Group
        Japan Open Policy Forum
        
        2017-08-09 15:19 GMT+09:00 chku <chku at twnic dot net dot tw>:
        > Dear SIG members
        >
        > The proposal "prop-121: Updating “Initial IPv6 allocation” policy" has
        > been sent to the Policy SIG for review.
        >
        > It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting at APNIC 44 which will
        > be held in Taichung, Taiwan on Wednesday and Thursday, 14 & 15 September
        > 2017.
        >
        > We invite you to review and comment on the proposal on the mailing list
        > before the meeting.
        >
        > The comment period on the mailing list before an APNIC meeting is an
        > important part of the policy development process. We encourage you to
        > express your views on the proposal:
        >
        >   - Do you support or oppose this proposal?
        >   - Does this proposal solve a problem you are experiencing? If so,
        >     tell the community about your situation.
        >   - Do you see any disadvantages in this proposal?
        >   - Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear?
        >   - What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more
        >     effective?
        >
        > Information about this proposal is available at:
        >
        >     http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-121
        >
        > Regards
        >
        > Sumon, Ching-Heng, Bertrand
        > APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
        >
        >
        > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
        >
        > prop-121-v001: Updating “Initial IPv6 allocation” policy
        >
        > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
        >
        > Proposer:       Jordi Palet Martinez
        >                 jordi.palet at consulintel dot es
        >
        > Problem Statement
        > -----------------
        >
        > The actual policy text (9.2.2. Account holders without existing IPv4
        > space) is assuming that an LIR will have more than 200 customers over a
        > period of 2 years, or it is already an IPv4 LIR.
        >
        > However, it is a perfectly valid possibility to have small LIRs, which
        > may be never will have 200 customers, for example they may have a dozen
        > of big enterprise customers, or they may be a new LIR, not having any
        > IPv4 addresses (we all know the run-out problem) or may choose to use a
        > limited number of IPv4 addresses from their upstream providers, because
        > they don’t intend to provide IPv4 services.
        >
        > It is also possible that the LIR is planning for a longer term than just
        > 2 years, for example a government with a national network which may take
        > a longer period to deploy, connecting all kind of institutions at
        > different levels (ministries, schools, health centres, municipalities,
        > other public institutions, etc.).
        >
        >
        > Objective of policy change
        > --------------------------
        >
        > To make sure that the policy is aligned with a wider set of possible
        > IPv6 deployment cases, including those indicated in the previous section
        > and facilitate the justification of the allocation/assignment size if a
        > bigger address block (versus the default one) is requested.
        >
        >
        > Situation in other regions
        > --------------------------
        > This situation, concretely in the case of big initial IPv6 allocations
        > to governments, has already occurred in RIPE, and the policy was updated
        > to be able to make those allocations. In some cases, a few governments
        > got delayed their deployments several years because the lack of an
        > appropriate policy covering their case.
        >
        >
        > Proposed policy solution
        > ------------------------
        >
        > Change some of the actual text as follows.
        >
        > Actual text:
        >
        > 9.2.2. Account holders without existing IPv4 space
        >
        > To qualify for an initial allocation of IPv6 address space, an
        > organization must:
        >
        > 1.   Be an LIR
        > 2.   Not be an end site
        > 3.   Plan to provide IPv6 connectivity to organizations to which it
        >      will make assignments.
        > 4.   Meet one of the two following criteria:
        >
        >  - Have a plan for making at least 200 assignments to other
        >    organizations within two years, or
        >
        >  - Be an existing LIR with IPv4 allocations from APNIC or an NIR, which
        >  will make IPv6 assignments or sub-allocations to other organizations
        >  and announce the allocation in the inter- domain routing system within
        >  two years.
        >
        > Private networks (those not connected to the public Internet) may also
        > be eligible for an IPv6 address space allocation provided they meet
        > equivalent criteria to those listed above.
        >
        >
        > New text:
        >
        > 9.2.2. Account holders without existing IPv4 space
        >
        > To qualify for an initial allocation of IPv6 address space, an
        > organization must:
        >
        > 1.   Be an LIR
        > 2.   Not be an end site
        > 3.   Plan, within two years, to provide IPv6 connectivity to other
        >      organizations/end-users to which it will make assignments.
        >
        > The allocation size, in case an address block bigger than the default
        > one (as indicated in 9.2.1.) is requested, will be based on the number
        > of users, the extent of the organisation's infrastructure, the
        > hierarchical and geographical structuring of the organisation, the
        > segmentation of infrastructure for security and the planned longevity of
        > the allocation.
        >
        > Private networks (those not connected to the public Internet) may also
        > be eligible for an IPv6 address space allocation provided they meet
        > equivalent criteria to those listed above.
        >
        > Advantages of the proposal
        > --------------------------
        >
        > Fulfilling the objective above indicated, so allowing a more realistic
        > alignment of the policy text with market reality under the IPv4
        > exhaustion situation.
        >
        > Disadvantages of the proposal
        > -----------------------------
        > Possible abuse of the policy, which may be done equally creating new
        > LIRs, and it is expected that the evaluation process of a request from
        > APNIC will avoid it.
        >
        >
        > Impact on resource holders
        > --------------------------
        > None.
        >
        >
        > References
        > ----------
        > Links to the RIPE and LACNIC texts on request.
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > _______________________________________________
        > Sig-policy-chair mailing list
        > Sig-policy-chair at apnic dot net
        > https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy-chair
        >
        > *              sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy           *
        > _______________________________________________
        > sig-policy mailing list
        > sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net
        > https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy