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