- 5522 days inactive
- 5522 days old
- 1 participants
- 0 comments
j: Next unread message
k: Previous unread message
j a: Jump to all threads
j l: Jump to MailingList overview
In case you are not subscribed to the APNIC Policy Mailing list, here's a heads up to the Pacific Islands LIRs/ISPs in this list.
Randy Bush (co-chair of Policy SIG) has summarized the comments and discussions based on the Proposal to change IPv6 initial allocation criteria.
Hope to see some engagement from the Pacific LIRs/ISPs in these APNIC policy process and to really get your opinions across.
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Randy Bush firstname.lastname@example.org Date: Feb 5, 2008 7:13 PM Subject: [sig-policy] report on prop-057: Proposal to change IPv6 initial allocation criteria To: email@example.com
Below is a summary of discussion on the proposal to date. We encourage you to continue discussion on the mailing list before APNIC 25.
Discussion statistics --------------------- Posted to Policy SIG mailing list: 25 January 2008
Number of posts: 40
Number of people participating in discussions: 13
Economy of origin of participants: 4 from Australia 1 from Hong Kong 3 from Japan 1 from Nepal 2 from New Zealand 2 from outside AP
Summary of discussion to date -----------------------------
- A plan is different to a commitment.
- Many LIRs in Japan have not applied for an IPv6 initial allocation because they feel that a plan is a commitment that must be met.
- The plan for 200 assignments has not been raised as a problem in APNIC surveys. No LIR has been denied an initial IPv6 allocation purely because they did not have a plan for 200 assignments.
- Given the linguistic diversity in the region, it would be good to clarify the words used to describe the initial allocation criteria.
- A problem with the current IPv6 multihoming policy is that many networks filter out prefixes smaller than a /35. This proposal could fix that.
- Perhaps suggest a change to the multihoming assignment policy rather than using this allocation policy process.
- The obstacles to IPv6 deployment are the difficulty of actually deploying it and the lack of user demand.
- Is it possible that organisations that are not established LIRs with RIR/NIR allocations will say this proposal discriminates against them?
- IPv6 allocations within the APNIC region continue to grow, which could suggest that the barrier to allocation is negligible.
- Actual BGP announcement of IPv6 allocations has not grown, which suggests that LIRs are not using the space after receiving it. IPv6 needs to be made usable for the LIR's customers.
- Perhaps remove the proposal's requirement to be an existing LIR with RIR/NIR allocations and allow any LIR with a plan for IPv6 assignments or sub-allocations to receive an initial IPv6 allocation.
- It is possible that if the proposal was implemented, any organisation that asks for an initial IPv6 allocation will qualify?
- Maybe IPv6 initial allocation criteria should mirror the IPv4 initial allocation criteria .
- Maybe a criteria based on a scale, such as the HD-ratio, could be used by LIRs to justify an initial IPv6 allocation.
- Proposal authors suggest amended alternative criteria:
- Be an existing LIR with IPv4 allocations from an RIR/NIR AND have a plan for making assignments and/or sub- allocations to other organizations within two years. The LIR should also plan to announce the allocation as a single aggregated block in the inter-domain routing system within two years.
Full details of the proposal can be found at:
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-057-v001.html * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list firstname.lastname@example.org http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy