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: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet at consulintel dot es>
- Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 08:07:51 +0800
- Delivered-to: sig-policy at mailman dot apnic dot net
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=consulintel.es; s=MDaemon; t=1505088493; x=1505693293; q=dns/txt; h=DomainKey-Signature: Received:User-Agent:Date:Subject:From:To:Message-ID:Thread-Topic: References:In-Reply-To:Mime-version:Content-type: Content-transfer-encoding:Reply-To; bh=jsK5EziYYzR9dcLL0UyEj6SIP BkoLZwVe2fUlxGw6Fg=; b=XcHt7bc7i0EP10NvjCjF1uS/BBJml+OcI74cRZ9TW Xa/aPij7tmTeTxGUunIu6joeu7QoB5i2NCGxGFY8a4UHiOwyq6ITEnmr33OnC2yp IWp+iZlOA2rEq1FkuqBFljwoiKpYyVMOWOYv2A7aG0D3fQviJ93Oy9qEdxzSPCFb Wg=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=MDaemon; d=consulintel.es; c=simple; q=dns; h=from:message-id; b=WNFZEAVYt62pIwv+YlLpcMgdC+yTCuXUfQynNTo1iQ/RQ9dmsO5o6vPwGn7H AEGfVnIJeiHKGITV/nD70JZaZHSuoWLGyu0tVwMbaqLy94e5BfhNSZ1+t KP2fq9QB57ciutV9KioTtvbTFV47m62v9wHbVKBo71mrJi4usEgkvk=;
- In-reply-to: <899dc249-ae22-39af-c8d1-85c2ca3d3b03 at nic dot ad dot jp>
- List-archive: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-policy/>
- List-help: <mailto:email@example.com?subject=help>
- List-id: APNIC SIG on resource management policy <sig-policy.lists.apnic.net>
- List-post: <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>
- List-subscribe: <https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy>, <mailto:email@example.com?subject=subscribe>
- List-unsubscribe: <https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/options/sig-policy>, <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=unsubscribe>
- References: <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Reply-to: email@example.com
- Thread-topic: [sig-policy] New proposal prop-121: Updating "InitialIPv6 allocation"
I just read again all the text of the actual policy, just to make sure I didn’t forget anything. Unless I’m missing something, according to that, the HD-ratio is only checked for subsequent allocations, so it has no effect on the initial IPv6 allocations. Regards, Jordi -----Mensaje original----- De: <sig-policy-bounces at lists dot apnic dot net> en nombre de Hiroki Kawabata <kawabata at nic dot ad dot jp> Responder a: <kawabata at nic dot ad dot jp> Fecha: domingo, 10 de septiembre de 2017, 16:23 Para: sig-policy <sig-policy at apnic dot net> Asunto: Re: [sig-policy] New proposal prop-121: Updating "InitialIPv6 allocation" 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 > * 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 ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.consulintel.es The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.