Keyboard Shortcuts
Thread View
j: Next unread messagek: Previous unread messagej a: Jump to all threadsj l: Jump to MailingList overview
Dear SIG members
The proposal 'Proposal to change IPv6 initial allocation criteria' has been sent to the Policy SIG for review. It will be presented during the Policy SIG sessions at APNIC 25 in Taipei, Taiwan, 25-29 February 2008.
The proposal's history can be found at:
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-057-v001.html
We invite you to review and comment on the proposal on the mailing list before the meeting.
The comment period on the mailing list before an APNIC meeting is an important part of the policy development process. We encourage you to:
- Ask the proposer questions if anything in the proposal is unclear - Point out advantages and disadvantages you see in the proposal - State whether you support or oppose the proposal
Mailing list discussions will be taken into account when the proposal is discussed at the upcoming APNIC meeting. So please make sure you have your say.
APNIC Policy SIG Chairs Toshiyuki Hosaka Randy Bush Jian Zhang
________________________________________________________________________
prop-057-v001: Proposal to change IPv6 initial allocation criteria
________________________________________________________________________
Authors: Toshiyuki Hosaka, JPNIC hosaka@nic.ad.jp
Izumi Okutani, JPNIC izumi@nic.ad.jp
Version: 1
Date: 25 January 2008
1. Introduction ---------------
This proposal is intended to enable current LIRs with existing IPv4 allocations to receive the IPv6 allocation they need, yet maintain the criteria which is still effective for organizations without IPv4 address allocations.
It seeks to ease current IPv6 initial allocation criteria by adding one condition which enables current LIRs with IPv4 allocations to receive IPv6 initial allocations without a plan for making 200 assignments.
2. Summary of the current problem ---------------------------------
Current IPv6 policy requires LIRs to provide a plan for 200 assignments before they can qualify for an initial allocation of IPv6 address space.
Some JPNIC members have pointed out that having a fixed number of planned assignments in this criteria makes it feel like an obligation that must be met. Therefore, it is becoming a barrier preventing LIRs from requesting IPv6 allocations.
As the exhaustion of the IPv4 free pool approaches and IPv6 adoption is promoted, the plan for 200 assignments is an unnecessary barrier to IPv6 allocation requests that should be removed.
3. Situation in other RIRs -----------------------
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.
4. Details of the proposal ----------------------------
It is proposed that criteria d. in section 5.1.1. 'Initial allocation criteria' be changed from:
- Have a plan for making at least 200 assignments to other organizations within two years.
To:
- 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.
5. Advantages and disadvantages of the proposal -------------------------------------------------
Advantages:
- The criteria will allow the intended target of IPv6 allocations -- LIRs with IPv4 allocations -- to request and receive an allocation more easily.
- The criteria will be consistent with all the other RIRs who do not make the 200 assignment requirement a mandatory condition.
Disadvantages:
- None.
6. Effect on APNIC members ----------------------------
APNIC members that have received IPv4 allocations can more easily request an IPv6 address allocation.
7. Effect on NIRs -------------------
NIRs are expected to adopt this policy.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Hi,
Good sensible proposal. I support this.
thanks ~ -gaurab
Randy Bush wrote: | Dear SIG members | | The proposal 'Proposal to change IPv6 initial allocation criteria' has | been sent to the Policy SIG for review. It will be presented during the | Policy SIG sessions at APNIC 25 in Taipei, Taiwan, 25-29 February 2008. | | The proposal's history can be found at: | | http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-057-v001.html | | We invite you to review and comment on the proposal on the mailing list | before the meeting. | | The comment period on the mailing list before an APNIC meeting is an | important part of the policy development process. We encourage you to: | | - Ask the proposer questions if anything in the proposal is | unclear | - Point out advantages and disadvantages you see in the proposal | - State whether you support or oppose the proposal | | Mailing list discussions will be taken into account when the proposal | is discussed at the upcoming APNIC meeting. So please make sure you have | your say.
Me too. :)
I think this proposal can remove one of the many roadblocks for IPv6 deployment, i.e. getting usable and portable IPv6 address block.
Che-Hoo
On Jan 26, 2008 2:26 AM, Gaurab Raj Upadhaya gaurab@lahai.com wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Hi,
Good sensible proposal. I support this.
thanks ~ -gaurab
Randy Bush wrote: | Dear SIG members | | The proposal 'Proposal to change IPv6 initial allocation criteria' has | been sent to the Policy SIG for review. It will be presented during the | Policy SIG sessions at APNIC 25 in Taipei, Taiwan, 25-29 February 2008. | | The proposal's history can be found at: | | http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-057-v001.html | | We invite you to review and comment on the proposal on the mailing list | before the meeting. | | The comment period on the mailing list before an APNIC meeting is an | important part of the policy development process. We encourage you to: | | - Ask the proposer questions if anything in the proposal is | unclear | - Point out advantages and disadvantages you see in the proposal | - State whether you support or oppose the proposal | | Mailing list discussions will be taken into account when the proposal | is discussed at the upcoming APNIC meeting. So please make sure you have | your say.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFHmim5So7fU26F3X0RAtIVAJ9aDDfGW+LTkNB2M1i2ltxbs6yXzgCfbncD jCBrqqz3gTjScRGmck8XnV0= =kWMa -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
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 all,
Looks good. I can see no disadvantages with this at all. I support this as it stands.
Cheers,
neil
On 26/01/2008, Randy Bush randy@psg.com wrote:
Dear SIG members
The proposal 'Proposal to change IPv6 initial allocation criteria' has been sent to the Policy SIG for review. It will be presented during the Policy SIG sessions at APNIC 25 in Taipei, Taiwan, 25-29 February 2008.
The proposal's history can be found at:
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-057-v001.htmlWe invite you to review and comment on the proposal on the mailing list before the meeting.
The comment period on the mailing list before an APNIC meeting is an important part of the policy development process. We encourage you to:
- Ask the proposer questions if anything in the proposal is unclear - Point out advantages and disadvantages you see in the proposal - State whether you support or oppose the proposalMailing list discussions will be taken into account when the proposal is discussed at the upcoming APNIC meeting. So please make sure you have your say.
APNIC Policy SIG Chairs Toshiyuki Hosaka Randy Bush Jian Zhang
prop-057-v001: Proposal to change IPv6 initial allocation criteria
Authors: Toshiyuki Hosaka, JPNIC hosaka@nic.ad.jp
Izumi Okutani, JPNIC <izumi@nic.ad.jp>Version: 1
Date: 25 January 2008
- Introduction
This proposal is intended to enable current LIRs with existing IPv4 allocations to receive the IPv6 allocation they need, yet maintain the criteria which is still effective for organizations without IPv4 address allocations.
It seeks to ease current IPv6 initial allocation criteria by adding one condition which enables current LIRs with IPv4 allocations to receive IPv6 initial allocations without a plan for making 200 assignments.
- Summary of the current problem
Current IPv6 policy requires LIRs to provide a plan for 200 assignments before they can qualify for an initial allocation of IPv6 address space.
Some JPNIC members have pointed out that having a fixed number of planned assignments in this criteria makes it feel like an obligation that must be met. Therefore, it is becoming a barrier preventing LIRs from requesting IPv6 allocations.
As the exhaustion of the IPv4 free pool approaches and IPv6 adoption is promoted, the plan for 200 assignments is an unnecessary barrier to IPv6 allocation requests that should be removed.
- Situation in other RIRs
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.
- Details of the proposal
It is proposed that criteria d. in section 5.1.1. 'Initial allocation criteria' be changed from:
- Have a plan for making at least 200 assignments to other organizations within two years.To:
- 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.
- Advantages and disadvantages of the proposal
Advantages:
- The criteria will allow the intended target of IPv6 allocations -- LIRs with IPv4 allocations -- to request and receive an allocation more easily. - The criteria will be consistent with all the other RIRs who do not make the 200 assignment requirement a mandatory condition.Disadvantages:
- None.
- Effect on APNIC members
APNIC members that have received IPv4 allocations can more easily request an IPv6 address allocation.
- Effect on NIRs
NIRs are expected to adopt this policy.
sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource managementpolicy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
On 26/01/2008, at 2:37 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
The proposal 'Proposal to change IPv6 initial allocation criteria' has been sent to the Policy SIG for review. It will be presented during the Policy SIG sessions at APNIC 25 in Taipei, Taiwan, 25-29 February 2008.
The proposal's history can be found at:
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-057-v001.html
Now I wholeheartedly support the deployment of v6, however currently I fail to see the actual requirement for this proposal. Current wording is purely for a *plan* for 200 v6 customers. I have plans for a lot of things. Reality is often quite different to those plans.
I don't see this proposal directly promoting the *deployment* of v6. If members feel that the biggest obstacle in the way to deploying - in any capacity - v6 was justifying an initial allocation, then how are they going to get on when it comes to actually implementing it.
Are there any members out there who have not been able to obtain v6 space under the current policy? If there is demonstrably a real problem here then I am happy to change my view on this policy. Otherwise I'm going to expend my efforts on actual problems.
Cheers, Jonny.
On 26/01/2008, Jonny Martin jonny@jonnynet.net wrote:
On 26/01/2008, at 2:37 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
The proposal 'Proposal to change IPv6 initial allocation criteria' has been sent to the Policy SIG for review. It will be presented during the Policy SIG sessions at APNIC 25 in Taipei, Taiwan, 25-29 February 2008.
The proposal's history can be found at:
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-057-v001.htmlNow I wholeheartedly support the deployment of v6, however currently I fail to see the actual requirement for this proposal. Current wording is purely for a *plan* for 200 v6 customers. I have plans for a lot of things. Reality is often quite different to those plans.
I don't see this proposal directly promoting the *deployment* of v6. If members feel that the biggest obstacle in the way to deploying - in any capacity - v6 was justifying an initial allocation, then how are they going to get on when it comes to actually implementing it.
Are there any members out there who have not been able to obtain v6 space under the current policy? If there is demonstrably a real problem here then I am happy to change my view on this policy. Otherwise I'm going to expend my efforts on actual problems.
I think the members you need to ask would be those that have been put off by the current requirement.
As you say, a plan is a very loose term, however there are members out there that I'm sure haven't applied for the an allocation based on the current criteria wording. I think the minor change to the wording as outlined here would help those cases.
Cheers,
Jonny.
Cheers,
neil
Jonny Martin wrote:
Are there any members out there who have not been able to obtain v6 space under the current policy? If there is demonstrably a real problem here then I am happy to change my view on this policy. Otherwise I'm going to expend my efforts on actual problems.
In the ARIN region, when considering a similar proposal we asked ARIN staff how many requests had been denied because they didn't have a plan for 200 customers. I believe the answer was 1.
I wouldn't oppose this policy, but it might be useful for APNIC staff to report on how many applicants have been turned down under the current policy for not meeting the requirement to have a plan for 200 customers.
-Scott
At least, I see one problem with the existing policy, i.e. if I'm an end user network of IPv6 (IPv4 too) and I may not do any further assignment but I need to do multihoming, I can only get a /48 portable assignment. However, some IPv6 networks filter out announcements longer than /35 (or other prefix length). What can I do now?
This proposal does solve this problem (or if there is change to portable assignment policy).
Che-Hoo
On Jan 26, 2008 5:54 AM, Jonny Martin jonny@jonnynet.net wrote:
On 26/01/2008, at 2:37 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
The proposal 'Proposal to change IPv6 initial allocation criteria' has been sent to the Policy SIG for review. It will be presented during the Policy SIG sessions at APNIC 25 in Taipei, Taiwan, 25-29 February 2008.
The proposal's history can be found at:
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-057-v001.htmlNow I wholeheartedly support the deployment of v6, however currently I fail to see the actual requirement for this proposal. Current wording is purely for a *plan* for 200 v6 customers. I have plans for a lot of things. Reality is often quite different to those plans.
I don't see this proposal directly promoting the *deployment* of v6. If members feel that the biggest obstacle in the way to deploying - in any capacity - v6 was justifying an initial allocation, then how are they going to get on when it comes to actually implementing it.
Are there any members out there who have not been able to obtain v6 space under the current policy? If there is demonstrably a real problem here then I am happy to change my view on this policy. Otherwise I'm going to expend my efforts on actual problems.
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
If we think that multihomed end user networks should be able to multihome with BGP in IPv6 (which I do), wouldn't a better solution be to just announce the portable /48 into BGP? Everyone I've talked to realizes that since there's no covering aggregate for portable /48 assignments received from RIRs, they need to accept those in BGP to ensure global reachability. Therefore, I don't see filtering at /35 across-the-board as something that people will continue doing for long, if they're still doing it today.
So, because of that, I don't think we should be giving out /32's to end user networks that simply need to be able to multihome. For those networks, a /48 (or a slightly larger network, if justified based on number of discrete multihomed networks) seems to make more sense to me.
-Scott
Che-Hoo CHENG wrote:
At least, I see one problem with the existing policy, i.e. if I'm an end user network of IPv6 (IPv4 too) and I may not do any further assignment but I need to do multihoming, I can only get a /48 portable assignment. However, some IPv6 networks filter out announcements longer than /35 (or other prefix length). What can I do now?
This proposal does solve this problem (or if there is change to portable assignment policy).
Che-Hoo
On Jan 26, 2008 5:54 AM, Jonny Martin <jonny@jonnynet.net mailto:jonny@jonnynet.net> wrote:
On 26/01/2008, at 2:37 AM, Randy Bush wrote: > The proposal 'Proposal to change IPv6 initial allocation criteria' has > been sent to the Policy SIG for review. It will be presented during > the > Policy SIG sessions at APNIC 25 in Taipei, Taiwan, 25-29 February > 2008. > > The proposal's history can be found at: > > http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-057-v001.html > Now I wholeheartedly support the deployment of v6, however currently I fail to see the actual requirement for this proposal. Current wording is purely for a *plan* for 200 v6 customers. I have plans for a lot of things. Reality is often quite different to those plans. I don't see this proposal directly promoting the *deployment* of v6. If members feel that the biggest obstacle in the way to deploying - in any capacity - v6 was justifying an initial allocation, then how are they going to get on when it comes to actually implementing it. Are there any members out there who have not been able to obtain v6 space under the current policy? If there is demonstrably a real problem here then I am happy to change my view on this policy. Otherwise I'm going to expend my efforts on actual problems. Cheers, Jonny. * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net <mailto: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
I know at least TEIN2 is doing this. Even if a single network does this, a /48 network with portable assignment can't have truly global IPv6 connectivity. Of course, this is not issue related to RIRs but this is indeed a practical issue.
Che-Hoo On Jan 26, 2008 6:24 AM, Scott Leibrand sleibrand@internap.com wrote:
If we think that multihomed end user networks should be able to multihome with BGP in IPv6 (which I do), wouldn't a better solution be to just announce the portable /48 into BGP? Everyone I've talked to realizes that since there's no covering aggregate for portable /48 assignments received from RIRs, they need to accept those in BGP to ensure global reachability. Therefore, I don't see filtering at /35 across-the-board as something that people will continue doing for long, if they're still doing it today.
So, because of that, I don't think we should be giving out /32's to end user networks that simply need to be able to multihome. For those networks, a /48 (or a slightly larger network, if justified based on number of discrete multihomed networks) seems to make more sense to me.
-Scott
Che-Hoo CHENG wrote:
At least, I see one problem with the existing policy, i.e. if I'm an end user network of IPv6 (IPv4 too) and I may not do any further assignment but I need to do multihoming, I can only get a /48 portable assignment. However, some IPv6 networks filter out announcements longer than /35 (or other prefix length). What can I do now?
This proposal does solve this problem (or if there is change to portable assignment policy).
Che-Hoo
On Jan 26, 2008 5:54 AM, Jonny Martin <jonny@jonnynet.net mailto:jonny@jonnynet.net> wrote:
On 26/01/2008, at 2:37 AM, Randy Bush wrote: > The proposal 'Proposal to change IPv6 initial allocation criteria' has > been sent to the Policy SIG for review. It will be presentedduring
> the > Policy SIG sessions at APNIC 25 in Taipei, Taiwan, 25-29 February > 2008. > > The proposal's history can be found at: > > http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-057-v001.html > Now I wholeheartedly support the deployment of v6, however currently I fail to see the actual requirement for this proposal. Current wording is purely for a *plan* for 200 v6 customers. I have plans for a lot of things. Reality is often quite different to thoseplans.
I don't see this proposal directly promoting the *deployment* of v6. If members feel that the biggest obstacle in the way to deploying - in any capacity - v6 was justifying an initial allocation, then how are they going to get on when it comes to actually implementing it. Are there any members out there who have not been able to obtain v6 space under the current policy? If there is demonstrably a real problem here then I am happy to change my view on this policy. Otherwise I'm going to expend my efforts on actual problems. Cheers, Jonny. * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net <mailto: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,
| I know at least TEIN2 is doing this. Even if a single network does this, a | /48 network with portable assignment can't have truly global IPv6 | connectivity. Of course, this is not issue related to RIRs but this is | indeed a practical issue.
I've heard that IPv6 address of some DNS root servers belongs to ARIN critical infrastructure space, which size is /48, so it should be fixed if all /48s are filtered.
-- Tomohiro Fujisaki
Che-Hoo CHENG wrote:
At least, I see one problem with the existing policy, i.e. if I'm an end user network of IPv6 (IPv4 too) and I may not do any further assignment but I need to do multihoming, I can only get a /48 portable assignment. However, some IPv6 networks filter out announcements longer than /35 (or other prefix length). What can I do now?
fix the multi-homing assignment
randy
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Jonny Martin wrote:
| | I don't see this proposal directly promoting the *deployment* of v6. | If members feel that the biggest obstacle in the way to deploying - | in any capacity - v6 was justifying an initial allocation, then how | are they going to get on when it comes to actually implementing it. | | Are there any members out there who have not been able to obtain v6 | space under the current policy? If there is demonstrably a real | problem here then I am happy to change my view on this policy. | Otherwise I'm going to expend my efforts on actual problems.
i tend to think that given the variety in the understanding of the English language in the region, clarifying the wordings to make it obvious is good - which the policy proposal intends to do.
thanks ~ -gaurab
I don't see this proposal directly promoting the *deployment* of v6.
the obstacles to v6 deployment are not lack PI space and the concurrent lack of ability to pollute the routing table. they are the difficulty of actually deploying and the lack of user demand.
randy
Randy Bush said the following on 25/1/08 23:37:
It seeks to ease current IPv6 initial allocation criteria by adding one condition which enables current LIRs with IPv4 allocations to receive IPv6 initial allocations without a plan for making 200 assignments.
A plan is just that, a plan. If ISPs feel unable to make a plan, what on earth are they doing in business. Business is all about making plans. Businesses that don't have plans don't last in business very long.
Some JPNIC members have pointed out that having a fixed number of planned assignments in this criteria makes it feel like an obligation that must be met.
Really? So we change Asia Pacific wide policy because a few JPNIC members have misunderstood the meaning of the word "plan"?
Therefore, it is becoming a barrier preventing LIRs from requesting IPv6 allocations.
Proof please? I'm not aware of anyone who has been denied IPv6 space because they couldn't put together a plan. As others have said, maybe the APNIC Secretariat can tell us how many have been rejected because of the "plan for 200 assignments" clause?
This proposal is a waste of time, IMHO, it solves nothing, it fixes nothing, and it will do nothing to help the deployment of IPv6. Unless APNIC can show that the majority of IPv6 applications were rejected because of the 200 limit, I oppose. We have better things to do with our time. This proposal has been here before, it has been roundly thrown out before; just because it reappears with different authors doesn't make it any better.
philip --
Activity Summary
- 5725 days inactive
- 5725 days old
- sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
- 8 participants
- 14 comments