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: Hiroki Kawabata <kawabata at nic dot ad dot jp>
    • Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2017 17:22:54 +0900
    • Delivered-to: sig-policy at mailman dot apnic dot net
    • 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>
      • Dear Jordi,
        
        We support these proposals(prop-121 and 122) in general but we have one comment.
        
        Now, when hostmaster evaluate the request bigger than the minimun allocation size,
        they detemin the allocated size based on the HD-Ratio.
        HD-Ratio is clearly written in the policy document.
        In the case of your policy proposal, it seems that it is not clear and
        it is difficult for hostmaster to objectively evaluate the allocation size.
        
        Regards,
        Hiroki
        
        ---
        Hiroki Kawabata(kawabata at nic dot ad dot jp)
        Hostmaster, IP Address Department
        Japan Network Information Center(JPNIC)
        
        
        Subject: [sig-policy] New proposal prop-121: Updating "InitialIPv6 allocation"
        From: chku <chku at twnic dot net dot tw>
        Date: Wed Aug 09 2017 15:19:00 GMT+0900
        
        
        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