Keyboard Shortcuts
Thread View
j: Next unread messagek: Previous unread messagej a: Jump to all threadsj l: Jump to MailingList overview
Hello Philip
On 29/01/2008, at 06:02 PM, Philip Smith wrote:
I suppose the question we don't know the answer to is "how many organisations simply don't bother applying for IPv6 space because they believe they MUST deploy to 200 sites within 2 years".
<snip>
Has anything like this been asked in any recent member survey carried out by KPMG?
APNIC member surveys include a general question about the ease of applying for APNIC resources. In the 2007 survey, participants were asked to respond to the following statement:
"1.6 The processes and requirements to obtain IPv4, IPv6 or ASN resources are clear and straightforward"
Two member surveys have been conducted since the IPv6 policy document was adopted in 2002. In the responses to those surveys, the 'plan for 200 assignments' criteria was not mentioned as a barrier to applying for an IPv6 allocation.
Regards
_____________________________________________________________________ Samantha Dickinson email: sam@apnic.net Policy Officer, APNIC sip: sam@voip.apnic.net http://www.apnic.net phone: +61 7 3858 3100 _____________________________________________________________________
Attachments:
- smime.p7s (application/pkcs7-signature — 2.3 KB)
Sam Dickinson said the following on 31/1/08 10:43:
Two member surveys have been conducted since the IPv6 policy document was adopted in 2002. In the responses to those surveys, the 'plan for 200 assignments' criteria was not mentioned as a barrier to applying for an IPv6 allocation.
Great, thanks very much for your response, Sam.
So, Izumi-san has identified a real problem within the Japanese community. Yet APNIC member surveys don't show a problem anywhere else in AsiaPac, which tallies with my experience too.
May I politely suggest that JPNIC works with their membership to clarify that "come up with a plan for 200 assignments in 2 years" is NOT the same as "you MUST make 200 assignments in 2 years or else"?
To me it makes no sense making the huge effort to change a regional policy if the interpretation problem only exists in one member economy.
philip --
Philip Smith wrote:
Sam Dickinson said the following on 31/1/08 10:43:
Two member surveys have been conducted since the IPv6 policy document was adopted in 2002. In the responses to those surveys, the 'plan for 200 assignments' criteria was not mentioned as a barrier to applying for an IPv6 allocation.
Great, thanks very much for your response, Sam.
So, Izumi-san has identified a real problem within the Japanese community. Yet APNIC member surveys don't show a problem anywhere else in AsiaPac, which tallies with my experience too.
May I politely suggest that JPNIC works with their membership to clarify that "come up with a plan for 200 assignments in 2 years" is NOT the same as "you MUST make 200 assignments in 2 years or else"?
To me it makes no sense making the huge effort to change a regional policy if the interpretation problem only exists in one member economy.
I note a few other voices of support for this proposal on the mailing list, so I don't think we can be sure that the problem is closed within Japan. If we also look worldwide, similar proposal was supported and implemented in all other regions except APNIC.
I think the nature of this issue is that it could be a problem for small/medium ISPs who plan for IPv6 deployment, but not for large ISPs or those who haven't seriously considered it.
I'd agree that it's a problem which only exists in JP if a survey was conducted to ask if the current criteria is being a barrier when considering to deploy IPv6 and hardly anyone considers it as an issue.
izumi
Hi Izumi,
Izumi Okutani said the following on 31/1/08 19:17:
I note a few other voices of support for this proposal on the mailing list, so I don't think we can be sure that the problem is closed within Japan. If we also look worldwide, similar proposal was supported and implemented in all other regions except APNIC.
It absolutely was not! Look at the "Situations in other RIRs" text of this very proposal. ;-) Even the text there contradicts itself.
ARIN threw Jordi's proposal out - they still require a plan for 200 assignments. The other RIRs have replaced "200" with text including "reasonable plan" or "must make IPv6 assignments", etc. I've cut and pasted below. The first para, btw, is plain wrong.
---------- All RIRs except APNIC no longer require a mandatory plan for 200 assignments.
The current IPv6 initial allocation criteria (in relation to assignment requirements) in each region are below:
- ARIN ...be an existing, known ISP in the ARIN region or have a plan for making at least 200 /48 assignments to other organizations within five years.
- AfriNIC ...show a reasonable plan for making /48 IPv6 assignments to end sites in the AfriNIC region within twelve months. The LIR should also plan to announce the allocation as a single aggregated block in the inter-domain routing system within twelve months.
- LACNIC ...Offer IPv6 services to clients or entities owns/related (including departments and/or sites) physically located within the region covered by LACNIC within a period not longer than 24 months.
- RIPE NCC ...have a plan for making sub-allocations to other organisations and/or End Site assignments within two years. ----------
This proposal for the APNIC region is the most generous of the lot, simply saying you'll get IPv6 if you have an existing IPv4 allocation. There is no requirement that an LIR do anything with the IPv6 allocation at all. I'd suggest this goes against APNIC's principle of stewardship and fair distribution of Internet resources, and allows LIRs to hoard address space.
And then you said you are open to modifications to the this proposal as long as the modifications don't "give away IPv6"??
Why all the contradictions?
As I've already said, this proposal is completely flawed. It should firstly get its facts correct, and then it should come up with a reasonable suggestion for replacement of "200" so that APNIC doesn't simply end up giving away IPv6 address space to all comers.
philip --
Hi Philip,
This proposal is in fact intended to be most strict among RIRs and not the same as Jordi's.
Note that ARIN have changed the criteria once as it was considered as a barrier according to Policy Proposal 2003-4. What we are proposing is slightly more strict (at least intended to be) than this.
I've made a comparison of our policy with other RIRs' below.
I hope this clarifies that this proposal is not generous compared to other RIRs and certainly doesn't intend to give out IPv6 allocations to anyone.
----------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) Ensure that a organization of a certain size with a plan to deploy IPv6 will be the target --> AfriNIC: show a reasonable plan for making + make route announcement within 1 year --> ARIN: be an existing, known ISP in the ARIN region --> LACNIC: Provide IPv6 services within 2 years --> RIPE: have a plan to sub-delegate to other organizations within 2 years --> proposal: be an LIR with IPv4 allocations and have a plan to sub-delegate to other organizations within 2 years (It has to meet an equivalent of *both* ARIN and RIPE's criteria in our proposal)
2) Ensure that the criteria will not be too lose when native IPv6 becomes a common deployment --> ARIN extended the requirement of 200 assignments (from 2 years) to 5 years as OR condition --> Other RIRs: No specific number required --> proposal: maintains the current criteria as OR condition (200 assignments required in two years) -----------------------------------------------------------------------
izumi
Philip Smith wrote:
Hi Izumi,
Izumi Okutani said the following on 31/1/08 19:17:
I note a few other voices of support for this proposal on the mailing list, so I don't think we can be sure that the problem is closed within Japan. If we also look worldwide, similar proposal was supported and implemented in all other regions except APNIC.
It absolutely was not! Look at the "Situations in other RIRs" text of this very proposal. ;-) Even the text there contradicts itself.
ARIN threw Jordi's proposal out - they still require a plan for 200 assignments. The other RIRs have replaced "200" with text including "reasonable plan" or "must make IPv6 assignments", etc. I've cut and pasted below. The first para, btw, is plain wrong.
All RIRs except APNIC no longer require a mandatory plan for 200 assignments.
The current IPv6 initial allocation criteria (in relation to assignment requirements) in each region are below:
- ARIN ...be an existing, known ISP in the ARIN region or have a plan for making at least 200 /48 assignments to other organizations within five years. - AfriNIC ...show a reasonable plan for making /48 IPv6 assignments to end sites in the AfriNIC region within twelve months. The LIR should also plan to announce the allocation as a single aggregated block in the inter-domain routing system within twelve months. - LACNIC ...Offer IPv6 services to clients or entities owns/related (including departments and/or sites) physically located within the region covered by LACNIC within a period not longer than 24 months. - RIPE NCC ...have a plan for making sub-allocations to other organisations and/or End Site assignments within two years.
This proposal for the APNIC region is the most generous of the lot, simply saying you'll get IPv6 if you have an existing IPv4 allocation. There is no requirement that an LIR do anything with the IPv6 allocation at all. I'd suggest this goes against APNIC's principle of stewardship and fair distribution of Internet resources, and allows LIRs to hoard address space.
And then you said you are open to modifications to the this proposal as long as the modifications don't "give away IPv6"??
Why all the contradictions?
As I've already said, this proposal is completely flawed. It should firstly get its facts correct, and then it should come up with a reasonable suggestion for replacement of "200" so that APNIC doesn't simply end up giving away IPv6 address space to all comers.
philip
sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
Hi Izumi,
Izumi Okutani said the following on 1/2/08 19:04:
This proposal is in fact intended to be most strict among RIRs and not the same as Jordi's.
Not how I read it. :-(
I hope this clarifies that this proposal is not generous compared to other RIRs and certainly doesn't intend to give out IPv6 allocations to anyone.
I think you need to update the text, unfortunately. It would certainly be very helpful to have it updated to correct errors I previously highlighted, as, reading it again right now, it doesn't reflect what you are saying here in e-mail.
- Ensure that a organization of a certain size with a plan to deploy
IPv6 will be the target --> AfriNIC: show a reasonable plan for making + make route announcement within 1 year
Your proposal has nothing about making a route announcement - so AfriNIC is more strict.
--> ARIN: be an existing, known ISP in the ARIN region
I take that to mean LIR membership. What's an ISP? ;-)
--> LACNIC: Provide IPv6 services within 2 years
LACNIC is more strict - you can't provide services without announcing prefixes.
--> RIPE: have a plan to sub-delegate to other organizations within 2 years
Same as your's, very very relaxed. No requirement to do anything at all.
--> proposal: be an LIR with IPv4 allocations and have a plan to sub-delegate to other organizations within 2 years (It has to meet an equivalent of *both* ARIN and RIPE's criteria in our proposal)
This is very relaxed. No requirement to announce address space at all, so no requirement to provide services. So yes, I'd say similar to RIPE NCC's (not RIPE - different organisation, not the same community).
Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. A lot of history is being ignored.
So, basically the proposal is saying: "if you are an LIR with IPv4 addresses and you plan to get at least two customers over the next 2 years, you can get an IPv6 /32". Reminds me of the way that Class Bs were handed out to orgs with more than about 100 hosts.
If prop-053 also goes through, than basically any ISP who gets an IPv4 /24 can also get an IPv6 /32 by saying they have a plan to have 2 customers over the next 2 years.
Mind you, will JPNIC members understand that "plan to have 2 customers" is actually just a plan, and not a mandatory requirement? I suspect you might want to come along later and delete the word "plan" as people in the JPNIC community may not understand what it means?
As I've said before, this proposal is not solving any known problem apart from a mistranslation in one economy in our whole community. If the upcoming APNIC meeting approves it, it basically removes all concept of responsible address management for IPv6.
philip --
Hi Philip,
I understand your concern now. If I read it correctly, you feel this proposal is too relaxed as it doesn't require any commitment for route annoucements/service plan?
The reason why we didn't mention it was because it is already a part of criteria c), but I personally don't have a problem about incorporating this part into d) as part of two years's commitment.
Let me discuss it with my co-author Toshi to see how we can revise it and get back to the list again. Your input was really helpful. Thanks!
izumi
Philip Smith wrote:
Hi Izumi,
Izumi Okutani said the following on 1/2/08 19:04:
This proposal is in fact intended to be most strict among RIRs and not the same as Jordi's.
Not how I read it. :-(
I hope this clarifies that this proposal is not generous compared to other RIRs and certainly doesn't intend to give out IPv6 allocations to anyone.
I think you need to update the text, unfortunately. It would certainly be very helpful to have it updated to correct errors I previously highlighted, as, reading it again right now, it doesn't reflect what you are saying here in e-mail.
- Ensure that a organization of a certain size with a plan to deploy
IPv6 will be the target --> AfriNIC: show a reasonable plan for making + make route announcement within 1 year
Your proposal has nothing about making a route announcement - so AfriNIC is more strict.
--> ARIN: be an existing, known ISP in the ARIN region
I take that to mean LIR membership. What's an ISP? ;-)
--> LACNIC: Provide IPv6 services within 2 years
LACNIC is more strict - you can't provide services without announcing prefixes.
--> RIPE: have a plan to sub-delegate to other organizations within 2 years
Same as your's, very very relaxed. No requirement to do anything at all.
--> proposal: be an LIR with IPv4 allocations and have a plan to sub-delegate to other organizations within 2 years (It has to meet an equivalent of *both* ARIN and RIPE's criteria in our proposal)
This is very relaxed. No requirement to announce address space at all, so no requirement to provide services. So yes, I'd say similar to RIPE NCC's (not RIPE - different organisation, not the same community).
Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. A lot of history is being ignored.
So, basically the proposal is saying: "if you are an LIR with IPv4 addresses and you plan to get at least two customers over the next 2 years, you can get an IPv6 /32". Reminds me of the way that Class Bs were handed out to orgs with more than about 100 hosts.
If prop-053 also goes through, than basically any ISP who gets an IPv4 /24 can also get an IPv6 /32 by saying they have a plan to have 2 customers over the next 2 years.
Mind you, will JPNIC members understand that "plan to have 2 customers" is actually just a plan, and not a mandatory requirement? I suspect you might want to come along later and delete the word "plan" as people in the JPNIC community may not understand what it means?
As I've said before, this proposal is not solving any known problem apart from a mistranslation in one economy in our whole community. If the upcoming APNIC meeting approves it, it basically removes all concept of responsible address management for IPv6.
philip
sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
Hi Izumi,
Izumi Okutani said the following on 4/2/08 11:46:
I understand your concern now. If I read it correctly, you feel this proposal is too relaxed as it doesn't require any commitment for route annoucements/service plan?
Yup, that's it.
The reason why we didn't mention it was because it is already a part of criteria c), but I personally don't have a problem about incorporating this part into d) as part of two years's commitment.
I think it should be there, please. Otherwise it simply reads that any LIR with an existing IPv4 allocation can simply get an IPv6 allocation to stock pile.
Let me discuss it with my co-author Toshi to see how we can revise it and get back to the list again. Your input was really helpful. Thanks!
Dropping 200 needs a replacement of some sort to make sure that LIRs are actually intending to do something with their IPv6. I'm sure encouraging stockpiling isn't the intention of the authors. ;-)
philip --
Hi Philip,
Philip Smith wrote:
Hi Izumi,
Izumi Okutani said the following on 4/2/08 11:46:
I understand your concern now. If I read it correctly, you feel this proposal is too relaxed as it doesn't require any commitment for route annoucements/service plan?
Yup, that's it.
The reason why we didn't mention it was because it is already a part of criteria c), but I personally don't have a problem about incorporating this part into d) as part of two years's commitment.
I think it should be there, please. Otherwise it simply reads that any LIR with an existing IPv4 allocation can simply get an IPv6 allocation to stock pile.
sure. point taken.
Let me discuss it with my co-author Toshi to see how we can revise it and get back to the list again. Your input was really helpful. Thanks!
Dropping 200 needs a replacement of some sort to make sure that LIRs are actually intending to do something with their IPv6. I'm sure encouraging stockpiling isn't the intention of the authors. ;-)
I couldn't agree more.
I've just sent a modified criteria to the list - I hope it looks more reasonable now. :-)
izumi
Hi all,
I've modified the proposed criteria to add a plan for routing annoucement within two years:
---- - Have a plan for making at least 200 assignments to other organizations within two years, OR;
- 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.* ----
It's inteded to allocate IPv6 to organizations which are equivalent in scale as in IPv4 and has a plan to distribute IPv6 to other organizations.
Comments are welcome on whether this criteria adequately reflects the target.
izumi
Izumi Okutani wrote:
Hi Philip,
I understand your concern now. If I read it correctly, you feel this proposal is too relaxed as it doesn't require any commitment for route annoucements/service plan?
The reason why we didn't mention it was because it is already a part of criteria c), but I personally don't have a problem about incorporating this part into d) as part of two years's commitment.
Let me discuss it with my co-author Toshi to see how we can revise it and get back to the list again. Your input was really helpful. Thanks!
izumi
Philip Smith wrote:
Hi Izumi,
Izumi Okutani said the following on 1/2/08 19:04:
This proposal is in fact intended to be most strict among RIRs and not the same as Jordi's.
Not how I read it. :-(
I hope this clarifies that this proposal is not generous compared to other RIRs and certainly doesn't intend to give out IPv6 allocations to anyone.
I think you need to update the text, unfortunately. It would certainly be very helpful to have it updated to correct errors I previously highlighted, as, reading it again right now, it doesn't reflect what you are saying here in e-mail.
- Ensure that a organization of a certain size with a plan to deploy
IPv6 will be the target --> AfriNIC: show a reasonable plan for making + make route announcement within 1 year
Your proposal has nothing about making a route announcement - so AfriNIC is more strict.
--> ARIN: be an existing, known ISP in the ARIN region
I take that to mean LIR membership. What's an ISP? ;-)
--> LACNIC: Provide IPv6 services within 2 years
LACNIC is more strict - you can't provide services without announcing prefixes.
--> RIPE: have a plan to sub-delegate to other organizations within 2 years
Same as your's, very very relaxed. No requirement to do anything at all.
--> proposal: be an LIR with IPv4 allocations and have a plan to sub-delegate to other organizations within 2 years (It has to meet an equivalent of *both* ARIN and RIPE's criteria in our proposal)
This is very relaxed. No requirement to announce address space at all, so no requirement to provide services. So yes, I'd say similar to RIPE NCC's (not RIPE - different organisation, not the same community).
Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. A lot of history is being ignored.
So, basically the proposal is saying: "if you are an LIR with IPv4 addresses and you plan to get at least two customers over the next 2 years, you can get an IPv6 /32". Reminds me of the way that Class Bs were handed out to orgs with more than about 100 hosts.
If prop-053 also goes through, than basically any ISP who gets an IPv4 /24 can also get an IPv6 /32 by saying they have a plan to have 2 customers over the next 2 years.
Mind you, will JPNIC members understand that "plan to have 2 customers" is actually just a plan, and not a mandatory requirement? I suspect you might want to come along later and delete the word "plan" as people in the JPNIC community may not understand what it means?
As I've said before, this proposal is not solving any known problem apart from a mistranslation in one economy in our whole community. If the upcoming APNIC meeting approves it, it basically removes all concept of responsible address management for IPv6.
philip
sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
Hi Izumi,
This certainly works for me now! Thank you.
(I'm sure some people will whine about announcing the IPv6 space as a single aggregated block, but I think stating that requirement is a good idea. ;-))
philip --
Izumi Okutani said the following on 5/2/08 11:57:
Hi all,
I've modified the proposed criteria to add a plan for routing annoucement within two years:
- Have a plan for making at least 200 assignments to other organizations within two years, OR; - 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.*
It's inteded to allocate IPv6 to organizations which are equivalent in scale as in IPv4 and has a plan to distribute IPv6 to other organizations.
Comments are welcome on whether this criteria adequately reflects the target.
izumi
Izumi Okutani wrote:
Hi Philip,
I understand your concern now. If I read it correctly, you feel this proposal is too relaxed as it doesn't require any commitment for route annoucements/service plan?
The reason why we didn't mention it was because it is already a part of criteria c), but I personally don't have a problem about incorporating this part into d) as part of two years's commitment.
Let me discuss it with my co-author Toshi to see how we can revise it and get back to the list again. Your input was really helpful. Thanks!
izumi
Philip Smith wrote:
Hi Izumi,
Izumi Okutani said the following on 1/2/08 19:04:
This proposal is in fact intended to be most strict among RIRs and not the same as Jordi's.
Not how I read it. :-(
I hope this clarifies that this proposal is not generous compared to other RIRs and certainly doesn't intend to give out IPv6 allocations to anyone.
I think you need to update the text, unfortunately. It would certainly be very helpful to have it updated to correct errors I previously highlighted, as, reading it again right now, it doesn't reflect what you are saying here in e-mail.
- Ensure that a organization of a certain size with a plan to deploy
IPv6 will be the target --> AfriNIC: show a reasonable plan for making + make route announcement within 1 year
Your proposal has nothing about making a route announcement - so AfriNIC is more strict.
--> ARIN: be an existing, known ISP in the ARIN region
I take that to mean LIR membership. What's an ISP? ;-)
--> LACNIC: Provide IPv6 services within 2 years
LACNIC is more strict - you can't provide services without announcing prefixes.
--> RIPE: have a plan to sub-delegate to other organizations within 2 years
Same as your's, very very relaxed. No requirement to do anything at all.
--> proposal: be an LIR with IPv4 allocations and have a plan to sub-delegate to other organizations within 2 years (It has to meet an equivalent of *both* ARIN and RIPE's criteria in our proposal)
This is very relaxed. No requirement to announce address space at all, so no requirement to provide services. So yes, I'd say similar to RIPE NCC's (not RIPE - different organisation, not the same community).
Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. A lot of history is being ignored.
So, basically the proposal is saying: "if you are an LIR with IPv4 addresses and you plan to get at least two customers over the next 2 years, you can get an IPv6 /32". Reminds me of the way that Class Bs were handed out to orgs with more than about 100 hosts.
If prop-053 also goes through, than basically any ISP who gets an IPv4 /24 can also get an IPv6 /32 by saying they have a plan to have 2 customers over the next 2 years.
Mind you, will JPNIC members understand that "plan to have 2 customers" is actually just a plan, and not a mandatory requirement? I suspect you might want to come along later and delete the word "plan" as people in the JPNIC community may not understand what it means?
As I've said before, this proposal is not solving any known problem apart from a mistranslation in one economy in our whole community. If the upcoming APNIC meeting approves it, it basically removes all concept of responsible address management for IPv6.
philip
sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
Hi Philip,
Great. Thanks for your input - I really appreciate it.
I agree about the route annoucement requirement. It's already a part of the current criteria and we need something that ensures that the space will actually be used.
Comments from others is also very welcome.
izumi
Philip Smith wrote:
Hi Izumi,
This certainly works for me now! Thank you.
(I'm sure some people will whine about announcing the IPv6 space as a single aggregated block, but I think stating that requirement is a good idea. ;-))
philip
Izumi Okutani said the following on 5/2/08 11:57:
Hi all,
I've modified the proposed criteria to add a plan for routing annoucement within two years:
- Have a plan for making at least 200 assignments to other organizations within two years, OR; - 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.*
It's inteded to allocate IPv6 to organizations which are equivalent in scale as in IPv4 and has a plan to distribute IPv6 to other organizations.
Comments are welcome on whether this criteria adequately reflects the target.
izumi
Izumi Okutani wrote:
Hi Philip,
I understand your concern now. If I read it correctly, you feel this proposal is too relaxed as it doesn't require any commitment for route annoucements/service plan?
The reason why we didn't mention it was because it is already a part of criteria c), but I personally don't have a problem about incorporating this part into d) as part of two years's commitment.
Let me discuss it with my co-author Toshi to see how we can revise it and get back to the list again. Your input was really helpful. Thanks!
izumi
Philip Smith wrote:
Hi Izumi,
Izumi Okutani said the following on 1/2/08 19:04:
This proposal is in fact intended to be most strict among RIRs and not the same as Jordi's.
Not how I read it. :-(
I hope this clarifies that this proposal is not generous compared to other RIRs and certainly doesn't intend to give out IPv6 allocations to anyone.
I think you need to update the text, unfortunately. It would certainly be very helpful to have it updated to correct errors I previously highlighted, as, reading it again right now, it doesn't reflect what you are saying here in e-mail.
- Ensure that a organization of a certain size with a plan to deploy
IPv6 will be the target --> AfriNIC: show a reasonable plan for making + make route announcement within 1 year
Your proposal has nothing about making a route announcement - so AfriNIC is more strict.
--> ARIN: be an existing, known ISP in the ARIN region
I take that to mean LIR membership. What's an ISP? ;-)
--> LACNIC: Provide IPv6 services within 2 years
LACNIC is more strict - you can't provide services without announcing prefixes.
--> RIPE: have a plan to sub-delegate to other organizations within 2 years
Same as your's, very very relaxed. No requirement to do anything at all.
--> proposal: be an LIR with IPv4 allocations and have a plan to sub-delegate to other organizations within 2 years (It has to meet an equivalent of *both* ARIN and RIPE's criteria in our proposal)
This is very relaxed. No requirement to announce address space at all, so no requirement to provide services. So yes, I'd say similar to RIPE NCC's (not RIPE - different organisation, not the same community).
Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. A lot of history is being ignored.
So, basically the proposal is saying: "if you are an LIR with IPv4 addresses and you plan to get at least two customers over the next 2 years, you can get an IPv6 /32". Reminds me of the way that Class Bs were handed out to orgs with more than about 100 hosts.
If prop-053 also goes through, than basically any ISP who gets an IPv4 /24 can also get an IPv6 /32 by saying they have a plan to have 2 customers over the next 2 years.
Mind you, will JPNIC members understand that "plan to have 2 customers" is actually just a plan, and not a mandatory requirement? I suspect you might want to come along later and delete the word "plan" as people in the JPNIC community may not understand what it means?
As I've said before, this proposal is not solving any known problem apart from a mistranslation in one economy in our whole community. If the upcoming APNIC meeting approves it, it basically removes all concept of responsible address management for IPv6.
philip
sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
okutani-san,
the change made me more comfortable.
randy
Hi Izumi.
- Be an existing LIR with IPv4 allocations from an RIR/NIR ANDhave 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.*
This proposal looks much better having the requirement for a plan to advertise any allocated IPv6 space.
I would prefer that that the "plan" to advertise was in fact a "requirement" to advertise, however I'm happy either way. (And I hope that the 'plan to advertise' is not misconstrued in the same way that the 'plan for 200 assignments' in current policy seems to have been...)
At a minimum, an IPv6 advertisement requires some basic IPv6 implementation by an LIR - which is a good thing.
Cheers, Jonny. (from NZ - Randy has picked up on that in his useful summaries of comments)
Hi,
On 05/02/2008 15:11, "Jonny Martin" jonny@jonnynet.net wrote:
[...]
I would prefer that that the "plan" to advertise was in fact a "requirement" to advertise, however I'm happy either way. (And I hope that the 'plan to advertise' is not misconstrued in the same way that the 'plan for 200 assignments' in current policy seems to have been...)
Perhaps "an intent to advertise" would remove any ambiguity?
Regards,
Leo Vegoda (Not based in APNIC's service region)
Leo Vegoda wrote:
Hi,
On 05/02/2008 15:11, "Jonny Martin" jonny@jonnynet.net wrote:
[...]
I would prefer that that the "plan" to advertise was in fact a "requirement" to advertise, however I'm happy either way. (And I hope that the 'plan to advertise' is not misconstrued in the same way that the 'plan for 200 assignments' in current policy seems to have been...)
Perhaps "an intent to advertise" would remove any ambiguity?
I thought Jonny's point was the other way, that the plan for routing should be more concrete than the context of 'plan for 200 assignments'.
Regards,
Leo Vegoda (Not based in APNIC's service region)
:-)
izumi (one of the three from JP)
Hi Jonny,
Jonny Martin wrote:
Hi Izumi.
- Be an existing LIR with IPv4 allocations from an RIR/NIR ANDhave 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.*
This proposal looks much better having the requirement for a plan to advertise any allocated IPv6 space.
I would prefer that that the "plan" to advertise was in fact a "requirement" to advertise, however I'm happy either way. (And I hope that the 'plan to advertise' is not misconstrued in the same way that the 'plan for 200 assignments' in current policy seems to have been...)
I see what you mean and tried to play with some words, but I felt putting a word that makes it sound like a requirement gives quite a strong impression.
I would prefer to leave the phrase as it is and have hosmasters to judge on the reliability of the "plan" if you are happy either way.
I do see your point and appreciate your input!
thanks, izumi
Hi Izumi,
Izumi Okutani said the following on 6/2/08 13:42:
I see what you mean and tried to play with some words, but I felt putting a word that makes it sound like a requirement gives quite a strong impression.
"plan" doesn't make any requirement at all, as I pointed out before. Apart from in Japan, it seems. ;-)
In retrospect, I think your new words of:
The LIR should also plan to announce the allocation as a single aggregated block in the inter-domain routing system within two years.
should be replaced with:
The LIR must also announce the allocation as a single aggregated block in the inter-domain routing system within two years.
Just delete the word "plan", as a plan is nothing more than a vague statement of some future intention which may or may not come to pass. Also change "should" to "must" - that's a commitment now!
As I also indicated before, I'm amused that you propose the word "plan" for the updated text, yet it was a complete show stopper for the 200 number that you are trying so hard to delete.
philip --
On 6/02/2008, at 7:25 PM, Philip Smith wrote:
Hi Izumi,
Izumi Okutani said the following on 6/2/08 13:42:
I see what you mean and tried to play with some words, but I felt putting a word that makes it sound like a requirement gives quite a strong impression.
"plan" doesn't make any requirement at all, as I pointed out before. Apart from in Japan, it seems. ;-)
Yes, I was hoping "plan" could be avoided in the updated text also.
In retrospect, I think your new words of:
The LIR should also plan to announce the allocation as a single aggregated block in the inter-domain routing system within two years.
should be replaced with:
The LIR must also announce the allocation as a single aggregated block in the inter-domain routing system within two years.
Just delete the word "plan", as a plan is nothing more than a vague statement of some future intention which may or may not come to pass. Also change "should" to "must" - that's a commitment now!
I like that. I'd fully support the proposal if it is amended as you've presented.
Cheers, Jonny.
I see that as a general definition, "plan" doesn't require any commitment and sounds too weak.
I would personally still prefer have the word "plan", but I'm happy to follow what others think is appropriate.
Could I suggest to put these two phrases as options in the proposal and have consensus decision at the meeting on which is more appropriate?
It could be a cultural thing, but to me, "plan" is something that you are quite sure you will do it unless something unexpected happens. removing this and replacing it with "must" sounds like you have to be 100% sure to do it and no room for uncertainties which are not intended.
To put it in short, my first preference is have the word "plan", but I agree to remove it if more people think that's preferable.
izumi
Jonny Martin wrote:
On 6/02/2008, at 7:25 PM, Philip Smith wrote:
Hi Izumi,
Izumi Okutani said the following on 6/2/08 13:42:
I see what you mean and tried to play with some words, but I felt putting a word that makes it sound like a requirement gives quite a strong impression.
"plan" doesn't make any requirement at all, as I pointed out before. Apart from in Japan, it seems. ;-)
Yes, I was hoping "plan" could be avoided in the updated text also.
In retrospect, I think your new words of:
The LIR should also plan to announce the allocation as a single aggregated block in the inter-domain routing system within two years.
should be replaced with:
The LIR must also announce the allocation as a single aggregated block in the inter-domain routing system within two years.
Just delete the word "plan", as a plan is nothing more than a vague statement of some future intention which may or may not come to pass. Also change "should" to "must" - that's a commitment now!
I like that. I'd fully support the proposal if it is amended as you've presented.
Cheers, Jonny.
sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
Hi Izumi,
Izumi Okutani said the following on 6/2/08 18:59:
I see that as a general definition, "plan" doesn't require any commitment and sounds too weak.
Right.
It could be a cultural thing, but to me, "plan" is something that you are quite sure you will do it unless something unexpected happens.
No, that is definitely not what plan means. Sounds like a very unfortunate mistranslation to me. From my Collins English Dictionary:
plan (n):
1. a detailed scheme, method, etc, for attaining an objective
2. a proposed, usually tentative idea for doing something
There is nothing there that says that a plan is something that must be done unless something unexpected happens.
removing this and replacing it with "must" sounds like you have to be 100% sure to do it and no room for uncertainties which are not intended.
Why apply for IPv6 address space if you aren't certain you are going to use it?
To put it in short, my first preference is have the word "plan", but I agree to remove it if more people think that's preferable.
Using the word "plan" will result in what you said you wanted to avoid in the first place, the giving away of IPv6 addresses. This is why the original IPv6 proposal from a few years ago said "plan of 200" - the idea is to get people to think a little about doing something with IPv6, rather than just stock piling. Mind you, "plan" doesn't discourage stock piling, but ISPs had to at least think about it.
The new proposal basically replaces "plan of 200" to "plan of more than one customer", which, if you think about it, even I could do for my home network, right here in Brisbane. I could simply ask my two neighbours to be my customers - and I could justify an IPv4 /24 if prop-053 I mentioned earlier is approved, so would qualify for an IPv6 /32. Which I'm sure isn't the intention of your proposal. ;-)
philip --
Hi Philip,
Thanks for explaining. I agree to remove the word "plan" if that's what the common definition is.
I still feel "must announce" is quite a strong statement though.
I think the level of commitment required should be consistent with other resources, so how about adding the word "demonstrate"?
It's used in defining criteria for all APNIC resources, i.e, IPv4 allocation, small mult-home assigment and ASN (see below) and hope this would address your concern.
The proposed phrase would be:
----- The LIR must also demonstrate to announce the allocation as a single aggregated block in the inter-domain routing system within two years. -----
izumi
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- IPv4 allocation -------------------------------------------------------------------------- : : *demonstrate* a detailed plan for use of a /22 within a year; and : -------------------------------------------------------------------------- small multi-homed assignment -------------------------------------------------------------------------- : is currently multihomed with provider-based addresses, or *demonstrates* a plan to multihome within one month; and agrees to renumber out of previously assigned address space. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ASN -------------------------------------------------------------------------- An organisation is eligible for an ASN assignment if it: : : An organisation will also be eligible if it can *demonstrate* that it will meet the above criteria upon receiving an ASN (or within a reasonably short time thereafter). --------------------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Smith wrote:
Hi Izumi,
Izumi Okutani said the following on 6/2/08 18:59:
I see that as a general definition, "plan" doesn't require any commitment and sounds too weak.
Right.
It could be a cultural thing, but to me, "plan" is something that you are quite sure you will do it unless something unexpected happens.
No, that is definitely not what plan means. Sounds like a very unfortunate mistranslation to me. From my Collins English Dictionary:
plan (n):
a detailed scheme, method, etc, for attaining an objective
a proposed, usually tentative idea for doing something
There is nothing there that says that a plan is something that must be done unless something unexpected happens.
removing this and replacing it with "must" sounds like you have to be 100% sure to do it and no room for uncertainties which are not intended.
Why apply for IPv6 address space if you aren't certain you are going to use it?
To put it in short, my first preference is have the word "plan", but I agree to remove it if more people think that's preferable.
Using the word "plan" will result in what you said you wanted to avoid in the first place, the giving away of IPv6 addresses. This is why the original IPv6 proposal from a few years ago said "plan of 200" - the idea is to get people to think a little about doing something with IPv6, rather than just stock piling. Mind you, "plan" doesn't discourage stock piling, but ISPs had to at least think about it.
The new proposal basically replaces "plan of 200" to "plan of more than one customer", which, if you think about it, even I could do for my home network, right here in Brisbane. I could simply ask my two neighbours to be my customers - and I could justify an IPv4 /24 if prop-053 I mentioned earlier is approved, so would qualify for an IPv6 /32. Which I'm sure isn't the intention of your proposal. ;-)
philip
Hi Izumi,
In practical terms, how would APNIC hostmasters evaluate this? How exactly does an LIR "demonstrate"?
I think that this is more ambiguous than the "plan to make 200 assignments" wording you are trying to remove from the policy.
What happens if the LIR is not announcing the address space in two years?
Tim.
On 7/2/08 5:34 PM, "Izumi Okutani" izumi@nic.ad.jp wrote:
Hi Philip,
Thanks for explaining. I agree to remove the word "plan" if that's what the common definition is.
I still feel "must announce" is quite a strong statement though.
I think the level of commitment required should be consistent with other resources, so how about adding the word "demonstrate"?
It's used in defining criteria for all APNIC resources, i.e, IPv4 allocation, small mult-home assigment and ASN (see below) and hope this would address your concern.
The proposed phrase would be:
----- The LIR must also demonstrate to announce the allocation as a single aggregated block in the inter-domain routing system within two years. -----
izumi
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- IPv4 allocation -------------------------------------------------------------------------- : : *demonstrate* a detailed plan for use of a /22 within a year; and : -------------------------------------------------------------------------- small multi-homed assignment -------------------------------------------------------------------------- : is currently multihomed with provider-based addresses, or *demonstrates* a plan to multihome within one month; and agrees to renumber out of previously assigned address space. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ASN -------------------------------------------------------------------------- An organisation is eligible for an ASN assignment if it: : : An organisation will also be eligible if it can *demonstrate* that it will meet the above criteria upon receiving an ASN (or within a reasonably short time thereafter). --------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Tim,
I don't really have an answer to that. As AfriNIC has already implemented the criteria about routing annoucements, they can perhaps confirm with AfriNIC hosmasters?
Izumi
Tim Jones wrote:
Hi Izumi,
In practical terms, how would APNIC hostmasters evaluate this? How exactly does an LIR "demonstrate"?
I think that this is more ambiguous than the "plan to make 200 assignments" wording you are trying to remove from the policy.
What happens if the LIR is not announcing the address space in two years?
Tim.
On 7/2/08 5:34 PM, "Izumi Okutani" izumi@nic.ad.jp wrote:
Hi Philip,
Thanks for explaining. I agree to remove the word "plan" if that's what the common definition is.
I still feel "must announce" is quite a strong statement though.
I think the level of commitment required should be consistent with other resources, so how about adding the word "demonstrate"?
It's used in defining criteria for all APNIC resources, i.e, IPv4 allocation, small mult-home assigment and ASN (see below) and hope this would address your concern.
The proposed phrase would be:
The LIR must also demonstrate to announce the allocation as a single aggregated block in the inter-domain routing system within two years.
izumi
IPv4 allocation
: : *demonstrate* a detailed plan for use of a /22 within a year; and :
small multi-homed assignment
: is currently multihomed with provider-based addresses, or *demonstrates* a plan to multihome within one month; and agrees to renumber out of previously assigned address space.
ASN
An organisation is eligible for an ASN assignment if it: : : An organisation will also be eligible if it can *demonstrate* that it will meet the above criteria upon receiving an ASN (or within a reasonably short time thereafter).
sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
Activity Summary
- 5710 days inactive
- 5710 days old
- sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
- 7 participants
- 23 comments