Orbit

Hi Jay,

Regardless of whether it went through second opinion process, the assignment record (be it public or private) is of the following format. Please note the mandatory attributes.

IPv4 registration required for larger than /30 assignments (see section 10.4 IPv4 policy)

inetnum: [mandatory] netname: [mandatory] descr: [mandatory] country: [mandatory] admin-c: [mandatory] tech-c: [mandatory] status: [mandatory] remarks: [optional] notify: [optional mnt-by: [mandatory] mnt-lower: [optional] mnt-routes: [optional] changed: [mandatory] source: [mandatory]

IPv6 registration required for /48 and larger assignments (see section 5.6 IPv6 policy)

inet6num: [mandatory] netname: [mandatory] descr: [mandatory] country: [mandatory] admin-c: [mandatory] tech-c: [mandatory] status: [mandatory] remarks: [optional] notify: [optional] mnt-by: [mandatory] mnt-lower: [optional] mnt-routes: [optional] changed: [mandatory] source: [mandatory]

The information content is pretty much the same with the exception that in IPv6, you can combine the registration at the /48 level. For example, if there are 100 x /56 customers under a /48 the registration may look like this:

inet6num: dead:beef::/48 netname: customer-block-1 descr: customer block region 1 country: AU admin-c: ADM1-AP tech-c: TEC1-AP status: ASSIGNED NON-PORTABLE mnt-by: MAINT-EXAMPLEISP-AU changed: hm-changed@apnic.net 20100615 source: APNIC

If your question is about what data gets asked in the second opinion process, it is collected by the following form (additional information may be asked on a case by case basis). Feel free to step through the form to the end (just before 'submit'). This data will not be published.

http://www.apnic.net/services/manage-resources/second-opinion

Cheers, Sanjaya

On 14/06/2010 8:45 AM, Jay Daley wrote:

Hi Sanjaya

Thanks, that is half way towards answering my question. My question is really about the data of the end-user to whom an assignment is made. Perhaps the following table might explain it

    +----------------+-------------------+
    | Second opinion | No second opinion |

+------+----------------+-------------------+ | IPv4 | data? | data? | +------+----------------+-------------------+ | IPv6 | data | data? | +------+----------------+-------------------+

For each of the four boxes I would like to know what data the policy states must be recorded in the APNIC database (and then made available by WHOIS if marked 'public'). It appears from my reading that as well as the boundary moving on when a second opinion is required, there has also been a change on what data is required in either case.

kind regards Jay

1. In IPv4 when an assignment is made

On 11/06/2010, at 7:01 PM, Sanjaya wrote:

...

On 10/06/2010 10:04 AM, Jay Daley wrote:

...

Hello All

I was hoping someone might be able to explain the following paragraph from the IPv6 allocation policy [1], section 5.5.1:

...

...

RIRs/NIRs are not concerned about which address size an LIR/ISP actually assigns. Accordingly, RIRs/NIRs will not request the detailed information on IPv6 user networks as they did in IPv4, except for the cases described in Section 4.4 and for the purposes of measuring utilization as defined in this document.

My first problem is that I am not clear on what is the detailed information that is not being requested. I assume it is that specified in 10.4 of the IPv4 allocation policy [2], which is basically the details of whom the assignment is made to but any confirmation would be welcome.

Hi Jay,

The paragraph refers to the information requested by APNIC when an LIR/ISP assigns IPv6 address to customers.

In the case of IPv4, APNIC requires that the LIR/ISP sends a second opinion request before making assignment above their assignment window. It's actually referring to section 10.1 of the IPv4 policy.

In IPv6, if the assignment size is a /48 or smaller, which is the majority of the case, no second opinion is required. See section 5.5.2 of the IPv6 policy for an exception to this rule.

So, in general APNIC would ask less information about IPv6 user networks, compared to IPv4.

...

My second problem, if I've understood the paragraph correctly, is that the reasoning does not make sense, leading me to doubt my understanding. As far as I can tell the leap from "we don't know what size you will choose to assign" to "so we won't ask for any data on who the assignment is to" is a complete non sequitur. Have I missed something?

thanks in advance Jay

[1] http://www.apnic.net/policy/ipv6-address-policy [2] http://www.apnic.net/policy/add-manage-policy

I hope this answers your question. Let me know if you need further clarifications.

Cheers, ________________________________________________________________________ Sanjaya email: sanjaya@apnic.net Services Director, APNIC sip: sanjaya@voip.apnic.net http://www.apnic.net phone: +61 7 3858 3100 ________________________________________________________________________

• Sent by email to save paper. Print only if necessary.

•          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 Jay,

My apologies for this delayed response. Further comments below.

On 15/06/2010 3:06 PM, Jay Daley wrote:

Hi Sanjaya

Thanks. (If anyone is bored by this then please let me know and I will take it off-list).

Just a couple more questions:

1. You pointed me to section 5.6 of the IPv6 policy which does not specify what data is needed for registering an assignment when the data is specified in the IPv4 policy. Where is that data specified if not in the policy?

I'm not sure I understand this question. Neither document specify the whois data record format that we use for both private and public assignment registrations. We take the whois specification out of the policy document for flexibility reasons.

1. The paragraph from the IPv6 policy is still causing me problems:

...

RIRs/NIRs are not concerned about which address size an LIR/ISP actually assigns. Accordingly, RIRs/NIRs will not request the detailed information on IPv6 user networks as they did in IPv4, except for the cases described in Section 4.4 and for the purposes of measuring utilization as defined in this document.

This paragraph needs to be read in the context of section 5.5.1 as a whole.

RIRs/NIRs are not concerned about assignment size as long as it's under the normal maximum /48 mentioned in the previous paragraph.

I suppose this can be made clearer.

It seems to me from your answers that this is entirely wrong because

• RIRs _are_ concerned about which address size an LIR assigns - the registration limit is /48 and APNIC still has a second opinion requirement.

• RIRs _will_ request detailed information on IPv6 user network for every assignment /48 and greater, not just for those exceptions mentioned in the paragraph.

Yes, these are covered in section 5.5.2.

Cheers, Sanjaya