[sig-policy] Final Comment Period for prop-122: Updating "Subsequent IPv6 all ocation" policy

  • To: "sig-policy" <sig-policy@apnic.net>
  • Subject: [sig-policy] Final Comment Period for prop-122: Updating "Subsequent IPv6 all ocation" policy
  • From: "chku" <chku@twnic.net.tw>
  • Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2017 15:53:24 +0800 (CST)
  • Delivered-to: sig-policy@clove.apnic.net
  • 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>
  • Reply-to: chku <chku@twnic.net.tw>

    • Dear colleagues
      
      Version 1 of prop-122: Updating "Subsequent IPv6 allocation" policy,
      reached consensus at the APNIC 44 Open Policy Meeting and later at the
      APNIC Member Meeting (AMM).
      
      This proposal will now move to the next step in the APNIC Policy
      Development Process and is being returned to the Policy SIG mailing list
      for the final Comment Period.
      
          - Deadline for comments:  23:59 (UTC +10) Wednesday, 18 October 2017
      
      Proposal details, including the full text of the proposal, history, and
      links to previous versions are available at:
      
          https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/proposals/prop-116/
      
      Regards
      
      Sumon, Ching-Heng, Bertrand
      Policy SIG Chairs
      
      
      ------------------------------------------------------------------------
      
      prop-122-v001: Updating "Subsequent IPv6 allocation" policy
      
      ------------------------------------------------------------------------
      
      Proposer:       Jordi Palet Martinez 
                      jordi.palet@consulintel.es
      
      Problem Statement
      -----------------
      If we reach consensus on the Updating "Initial IPv6 allocation" policy, 
      it is necessary to align the text of the subsequent allocations, in 
      order to be coherent and not discriminate LIRs with existing allocations.
      
      If consensus on that policy proposal is not reached, this proposal also
      allows LIRs with existing allocations a better justification of their
      new needs and not limited to a 2 years period.
      
      The actual policy text (9.3.4. Size of subsequent allocation) is
      assuming that an LIR will need just doubling his actual block, and then
      states the possibility of more space providing the relevant
      documentation. However, it is limiting that to a two-years period.
      
      
      Objective of policy change
      --------------------------
      To make sure that the subsequent IPv6 allocation policy is synchronized
      with the initial allocation one.
      
      
      Situation in other regions
      --------------------------
      Both RIPE and LACNIC have approved equivalent changes.
      
      
      Proposed policy solution
      ------------------------
      Change some of the actual text as follows.
      
      
      Actual text:
      
      9.3.4. Size of subsequent allocation
      
      When an organization has achieved an acceptable utilization for its
      allocated address space, it is immediately eligible to obtain an
      additional allocation that results in a doubling of the address space
      allocated to it. Where possible, except where separate disaggregated
      ranges are requested for multiple discrete networks, the allocation will
      be made from an adjacent address block, meaning that its existing
      allocation is extended by one bit to the left.
      
      If an organization needs more address space, it must provide
      documentation justifying its requirements for a two-year period. The
      allocation made will be based on this requirement.
      
      
      New text:
      
      9.3.4. Size of subsequent allocation
      
      When an organization has achieved an acceptable utilization for its
      allocated address space, it is immediately eligible to obtain an
      additional allocation that results in a doubling of the address space
      allocated to it. 
      
      Where possible, except where separate disaggregated ranges are requested
      for multiple discrete networks, the allocation will be made from an
      adjacent address block, meaning that its existing allocation is extended
      by one bit to the left.
      
      If an organization needs more address space, it must provide
      documentation justifying its new requirements. The allocation size, will
      be based on the new needs (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).
      
      
      Advantages of the proposal
      --------------------------
      Fulfilling the objective above indicated.
      
      
      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.
      
      
      
      Hello Chairs
      
      I have prepared an email for the mailing list regarding the outcome of 
      prop-122.
      
      I have set the comment period to end at Wednesday, 18 October 2017. So please send
      it by Wednesday of this week. Or you can change the end date to whatever you want.
      
      The PDP says the Comment Period should be no less than 4 weeks, but can be as long as
      8 weeks.
      
      Regards,
      
      Adam and George
      --
       
       
      ###DRAFT###
        
      Dear colleagues
      
      Version 1 of prop-122: Updating "Subsequent IPv6 allocation" policy,
      reached consensus at the APNIC 44 Open Policy Meeting and later at the
      APNIC Member Meeting (AMM).
      
      This proposal will now move to the next step in the APNIC Policy
      Development Process and is being returned to the Policy SIG mailing list
      for the final Comment Period.
      
          - Deadline for comments:  23:59 (UTC +10) Wednesday, 18 October 2017
      
      Proposal details, including the full text of the proposal, history, and
      links to previous versions are available at:
      
          https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/proposals/prop-116/
      
      Regards
      
      Sumon, Ching-Heng, Bertrand
      Policy SIG Chairs
      
      
      ------------------------------------------------------------------------
      
      prop-122-v001: Updating "Subsequent IPv6 allocation" policy
      
      ------------------------------------------------------------------------
      
      Proposer:       Jordi Palet Martinez 
                      jordi.palet@consulintel.es
      
      Problem Statement
      -----------------
      If we reach consensus on the Updating "Initial IPv6 allocation" policy, 
      it is necessary to align the text of the subsequent allocations, in 
      order to be coherent and not discriminate LIRs with existing allocations.
      
      If consensus on that policy proposal is not reached, this proposal also
      allows LIRs with existing allocations a better justification of their
      new needs and not limited to a 2 years period.
      
      The actual policy text (9.3.4. Size of subsequent allocation) is
      assuming that an LIR will need just doubling his actual block, and then
      states the possibility of more space providing the relevant
      documentation. However, it is limiting that to a two-years period.
      
      
      Objective of policy change
      --------------------------
      To make sure that the subsequent IPv6 allocation policy is synchronized
      with the initial allocation one.
      
      
      Situation in other regions
      --------------------------
      Both RIPE and LACNIC have approved equivalent changes.
      
      
      Proposed policy solution
      ------------------------
      Change some of the actual text as follows.
      
      
      Actual text:
      
      9.3.4. Size of subsequent allocation
      
      When an organization has achieved an acceptable utilization for its
      allocated address space, it is immediately eligible to obtain an
      additional allocation that results in a doubling of the address space
      allocated to it. Where possible, except where separate disaggregated
      ranges are requested for multiple discrete networks, the allocation will
      be made from an adjacent address block, meaning that its existing
      allocation is extended by one bit to the left.
      
      If an organization needs more address space, it must provide
      documentation justifying its requirements for a two-year period. The
      allocation made will be based on this requirement.
      
      
      New text:
      
      9.3.4. Size of subsequent allocation
      
      When an organization has achieved an acceptable utilization for its
      allocated address space, it is immediately eligible to obtain an
      additional allocation that results in a doubling of the address space
      allocated to it. 
      
      Where possible, except where separate disaggregated ranges are requested
      for multiple discrete networks, the allocation will be made from an
      adjacent address block, meaning that its existing allocation is extended
      by one bit to the left.
      
      If an organization needs more address space, it must provide
      documentation justifying its new requirements. The allocation size, will
      be based on the new needs (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).
      
      
      Advantages of the proposal
      --------------------------
      Fulfilling the objective above indicated.
      
      
      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@apnic.net
      https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy-chair