Keyboard Shortcuts
Thread View
j: Next unread messagek: Previous unread messagej a: Jump to all threadsj l: Jump to MailingList overview
19 Aug
2009
4:10 p.m.
Hi Terry, Andy,
I support this revised version also, it has reflected my previous concern.
Thank you,
Ren-Hung
> Dear SIG members
>
> Version 3 of the proposal "Automatic allocation/assignment of IPv6" has
> been sent to the Policy SIG for review. It will be presented at the
> Policy SIG at APNIC 28 in Beijing, China, 25-28 August 2009.
>
> More about the proposal can be found at:
>
> http://www.apnic.net/community/policy/proposals
>
> This new version of the proposal reflects feedback from the community
> received on the Policy SIG mailing list:
>
> - Section 4.2 of version 2 has been removed in this third version
> and the subsequent sections renumbered accordingly.
>
> - Section 4.3 from version 2 (now section 4.2) has been amended to
> reflect the removal of section 4.2 from version 2.
>
> - A new section 4.4 has been added to suggest that it is at the
> APNIC Secretariat's discretion to reserve IPv6 blocks under
> this proposal.
>
>
> We encourage you to express your views on the proposal:
>
> - Do you support or oppose this proposal?
> - Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear?
> - What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more
> effective?
>
> Randy, Jian and Ching-Heng
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> prop-073-v003: Automatic allocation/assignment of IPv6
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
>
> Authors: Terry Manderson
> <terry@terrym.net>
>
> Andy Linton
> <asjl@lpnz.org>
>
> Version: 3
>
> Date: 19 August 2009
>
>
>
> Version 3 of the proposal "Automatic allocation/assignment of IPv6" has
> been sent to the Policy SIG for review. It will be presented at the
> Policy SIG at APNIC 28 in Beijing, China, 25-28 August 2009.
>
> More about the proposal can be found at:
>
> http://www.apnic.net/community/policy/proposals
>
> This new version of the proposal reflects feedback from the community
> received on the Policy SIG mailing list:
>
> - Section 4.2 of version 2 has been removed in this third version
> and the subsequent sections renumbered accordingly.
>
> - Section 4.3 from version 2 (now section 4.2) has been amended to
> reflect the removal of section 4.2 from version 2.
>
> - A new section 4.4 has been added to suggest that it is at the
> APNIC Secretariat's discretion to reserve IPv6 blocks under
> this proposal.
>
>
> We encourage you to express your views on the proposal:
>
> - Do you support or oppose this proposal?
> - Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear?
> - What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more
> effective?
>
> Randy, Jian and Ching-Heng
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> prop-073-v003: Automatic allocation/assignment of IPv6
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
>
> Authors: Terry Manderson
> <terry@terrym.net>
>
> Andy Linton
> <asjl@lpnz.org>
>
> Version: 3
>
> Date: 19 August 2009
>
>
> 1. Introduction
> ----------------
>
> This is a proposal to simplify the criteria for a member requesting an
> initial block of IPv6 addresses where the member already has an IPv4
> assignment or allocation.
>
> Under this proposal, APNIC would reserve the appropriately sized IPv6
> block for each APNIC member that has IPv4 addresses but does not yet
> have IPv6 addresses.
>
> It is further proposed that members holding IPv4 addresses be able to
> request the IPv6 space reserved for them through a simple one-step
> process.
>
>
> 2. Summary of current problem
> ------------------------------
>
> It is well understood that the final allocations of IPv4 address space
> are drawing very close.
>
> The community and APNIC Secretariat have done much to promote the
> adoption of IPv6. However, the authors recognize that the uptake of IPv6
> is less than ideal. As a result, the community is looking for ways to
> promote the adoption of IPv6 so that it can be added to members' network
> infrastructure.
>
> The authors believe that the current APNIC processes recognize that an
> entity which has satisfied IPv4 criteria has done enough work to be
> assessed for IPv6 resources.
>
> This policy proposal aims to further promote IPv6 adoption by
> simplifying the process of applying to APNIC for IPv6 address space.
>
>
> 3. Situation in other RIRs
> ---------------------------
>
> RIPE:
>
> 2008-02,"Assigning IPv6 PA to Every LIR", a similar, but certainly
> not the same, proposal, was withdrawn by the author due to lack of
> support. There had been concern about the impact on member fees and
> that by issuing IPv6 addresses that hadn't been explicitly requested
> the proposal could make IPv6 a commodity.
>
> http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2008-02.html
>
> ARIN:
> ----------------
>
> This is a proposal to simplify the criteria for a member requesting an
> initial block of IPv6 addresses where the member already has an IPv4
> assignment or allocation.
>
> Under this proposal, APNIC would reserve the appropriately sized IPv6
> block for each APNIC member that has IPv4 addresses but does not yet
> have IPv6 addresses.
>
> It is further proposed that members holding IPv4 addresses be able to
> request the IPv6 space reserved for them through a simple one-step
> process.
>
>
> 2. Summary of current problem
> ------------------------------
>
> It is well understood that the final allocations of IPv4 address space
> are drawing very close.
>
> The community and APNIC Secretariat have done much to promote the
> adoption of IPv6. However, the authors recognize that the uptake of IPv6
> is less than ideal. As a result, the community is looking for ways to
> promote the adoption of IPv6 so that it can be added to members' network
> infrastructure.
>
> The authors believe that the current APNIC processes recognize that an
> entity which has satisfied IPv4 criteria has done enough work to be
> assessed for IPv6 resources.
>
> This policy proposal aims to further promote IPv6 adoption by
> simplifying the process of applying to APNIC for IPv6 address space.
>
>
> 3. Situation in other RIRs
> ---------------------------
>
> RIPE:
>
> 2008-02,"Assigning IPv6 PA to Every LIR", a similar, but certainly
> not the same, proposal, was withdrawn by the author due to lack of
> support. There had been concern about the impact on member fees and
> that by issuing IPv6 addresses that hadn't been explicitly requested
> the proposal could make IPv6 a commodity.
>
> http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2008-02.html
>
> ARIN:
> ARIN region but we have not identified a formal proposal.
>
> There have been no similar proposals in other regions.
>
>
> 4. Details of the proposal
> ---------------------------
>
> It is proposed that:
>
> 4.1 Alternative criteria be added to the IPv6 allocation and assignment
> policies to allow APNIC members that have IPv4 but no IPv6 space
> to qualify for an appropriately size IPv6 block under the matching
> IPv6 policy.
>
>
> 4.2 The size of the IPv6 delegation for members that meet the
> alternative criteria described in section 4.1 above will be based on
> the following:
>
> - A member that has an IPv4 allocation would be eligible for
> an IPv6 /32
>
> - A member that has received an IPv4 assignment under the
> multihoming policy would be eligible for an IPv6 /48
>
> - A member that has received an IPv4 assignment under the
> IXP or Critical Infrastructure policies would be eligible for
> an IPv6 /48
>
>
> 4.3 APNIC members can request the reserved IPv6 address block be
> allocated/assigned to their member account via a simple mechanism
> in existing APNIC on-line systems.
>
>
> 4.4 The APNIC Secretariat may reserve prefixes for any or all
> qualifying members to allow for a seamless allocation process. It
> is a responsibility of the Secretariat to select an appropriate
> reservation schedule, and as such the reservation of a prefix is
> not fixed in size, scope, nor time.
>
>
> To increase visibility of this proposal, the authors recommend that the
> APNIC Secretariat communicate to members and others that the criteria
> for receiving IPv6 space has been reduced and that the process of
> obtaining IPv6 address space has been made simpler. We recommend this to
> show that there is no effective barrier to members obtaining IPv6
> addresses.
>
> Current IPv6 policies are still available for members who apply for IPv6
> addresses without existing IPv4 addresses, or who apply for subsequent
> IPv6 resources.
>
>
> 5. Advantages and disadvantages of the proposal
> ------------------------------------------------
>
> There have been no similar proposals in other regions.
>
>
> 4. Details of the proposal
> ---------------------------
>
> It is proposed that:
>
> 4.1 Alternative criteria be added to the IPv6 allocation and assignment
> policies to allow APNIC members that have IPv4 but no IPv6 space
> to qualify for an appropriately size IPv6 block under the matching
> IPv6 policy.
>
>
> 4.2 The size of the IPv6 delegation for members that meet the
> alternative criteria described in section 4.1 above will be based on
> the following:
>
> - A member that has an IPv4 allocation would be eligible for
> an IPv6 /32
>
> - A member that has received an IPv4 assignment under the
> multihoming policy would be eligible for an IPv6 /48
>
> - A member that has received an IPv4 assignment under the
> IXP or Critical Infrastructure policies would be eligible for
> an IPv6 /48
>
>
> 4.3 APNIC members can request the reserved IPv6 address block be
> allocated/assigned to their member account via a simple mechanism
> in existing APNIC on-line systems.
>
>
> 4.4 The APNIC Secretariat may reserve prefixes for any or all
> qualifying members to allow for a seamless allocation process. It
> is a responsibility of the Secretariat to select an appropriate
> reservation schedule, and as such the reservation of a prefix is
> not fixed in size, scope, nor time.
>
>
> To increase visibility of this proposal, the authors recommend that the
> APNIC Secretariat communicate to members and others that the criteria
> for receiving IPv6 space has been reduced and that the process of
> obtaining IPv6 address space has been made simpler. We recommend this to
> show that there is no effective barrier to members obtaining IPv6
> addresses.
>
> Current IPv6 policies are still available for members who apply for IPv6
> addresses without existing IPv4 addresses, or who apply for subsequent
> IPv6 resources.
>
>
> 5. Advantages and disadvantages of the proposal
> ------------------------------------------------
>
> 5.1 Advantages
>
> This proposal:
>
> - Allows APNIC to engage with all IPv4 resource holders alerting
> them to the need to start work on deploying IPv6 addressing.
>
> - Pre-approves IPv6 resource delegations based on existing IPv4
> holdings.
>
> - Increases member benefit by avoiding duplication and effort in
> applying to APNIC for IPv6 when they have already demonstrated
> their network needs for an IPv4 delegation.
>
> - Removes another barrier to IPv6 adoption by providing all eligible
> organizations with an IPv6 assignment or allocation through a
> simple request.
>
>
> 5.2 Disadvantages
>
> This proposal does not deal with the need to encourage holders
> of "Historic Internet resources" to apply for IPv6 address space.
>
>
> 6. Effect on APNIC members
> ---------------------------
>
> 6.1 Fees
>
> No member's fees will increase as a result of this proposal
> because under the APNIC fee schedule, assessed address fees
> are the greater of the IPv4 and IPv6 fees. This proposal was
> careful to ensure that IPv6 delegations would not increase a
> member's annual fees (based on the recently revised APNIC fee
> structure)
>
>
> 6.2 Responsibility
>
> A member would acquire the responsibility to manage
> and maintain a IPv6 allocation in the APNIC registry framework.
>
>
> 6.3 Address/Internet number resource consumption
>
> There are about 1300 current APNIC members that do not hold an IPv6
> allocation. Allocating a /32 to each of these members would result
> in a maximum of /22 to /21 of IPv6 address space allocated if
> 5.1 Advantages
>
> This proposal:
>
> - Allows APNIC to engage with all IPv4 resource holders alerting
> them to the need to start work on deploying IPv6 addressing.
>
> - Pre-approves IPv6 resource delegations based on existing IPv4
> holdings.
>
> - Increases member benefit by avoiding duplication and effort in
> applying to APNIC for IPv6 when they have already demonstrated
> their network needs for an IPv4 delegation.
>
> - Removes another barrier to IPv6 adoption by providing all eligible
> organizations with an IPv6 assignment or allocation through a
> simple request.
>
>
> 5.2 Disadvantages
>
> This proposal does not deal with the need to encourage holders
> of "Historic Internet resources" to apply for IPv6 address space.
>
>
> 6. Effect on APNIC members
> ---------------------------
>
> 6.1 Fees
>
> No member's fees will increase as a result of this proposal
> because under the APNIC fee schedule, assessed address fees
> are the greater of the IPv4 and IPv6 fees. This proposal was
> careful to ensure that IPv6 delegations would not increase a
> member's annual fees (based on the recently revised APNIC fee
> structure)
>
>
> 6.2 Responsibility
>
> A member would acquire the responsibility to manage
> and maintain a IPv6 allocation in the APNIC registry framework.
>
>
> 6.3 Address/Internet number resource consumption
>
> There are about 1300 current APNIC members that do not hold an IPv6
> allocation. Allocating a /32 to each of these members would result
> in a maximum of /22 to /21 of IPv6 address space allocated if
> all 1300 members requested space.
>
> The actual allocation would be less than this as some members would
> receive a /48.
>
>
> 7. Effect on NIRs
> ------------------
>
> The impact on any NIR would depend if the NIR adopts this proposal for
> their constituency.
>
> * 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
>
--
Ren-Hung Hwang
Professor
Dept. of Computer Science & Information Engineering
National Chung Cheng Univ.
Chia-Yi, Taiwan, 621
http://exodus.cs.ccu.edu.tw/~rhhwang
WebOffice: http://mmc.elearning.ccu.edu.tw/home/rhhwang
>
> The actual allocation would be less than this as some members would
> receive a /48.
>
>
> 7. Effect on NIRs
> ------------------
>
> The impact on any NIR would depend if the NIR adopts this proposal for
> their constituency.
>
> * 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
>
--
Ren-Hung Hwang
Professor
Dept. of Computer Science & Information Engineering
National Chung Cheng Univ.
Chia-Yi, Taiwan, 621
http://exodus.cs.ccu.edu.tw/~rhhwang
WebOffice: http://mmc.elearning.ccu.edu.tw/home/rhhwang
3
3
Replies
20 Aug
2:35 a.m.
The revised version is clear and sound. I support this proposal.
Regards
Kenny Huang
Regards
Kenny Huang
2009/8/20 Ren-Hung Hwang <rhhwang@gmail.com>
Hi Terry, Andy,I support this revised version also, it has reflected my previous concern.Thank you,Ren-Hung> Dear SIG members
>
> Version 3 of the proposal "Automatic allocation/assignment of IPv6" has
> been sent to the Policy SIG for review. It will be presented at the
> Policy SIG at APNIC 28 in Beijing, China, 25-28 August 2009.
>
> More about the proposal can be found at:
>
> http://www.apnic.net/community/policy/proposals
>
> This new version of the proposal reflects feedback from the community
> received on the Policy SIG mailing list:
>
> - Section 4.2 of version 2 has been removed in this third version
> and the subsequent sections renumbered accordingly.
>
> - Section 4.3 from version 2 (now section 4.2) has been amended to
> reflect the removal of section 4.2 from version 2.
>
> - A new section 4.4 has been added to suggest that it is at the
> APNIC Secretariat's discretion to reserve IPv6 blocks under
> this proposal.
>
>
> We encourage you to express your views on the proposal:
>
> - Do you support or oppose this proposal?
> - Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear?
> - What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more
> effective?
>
> Randy, Jian and Ching-Heng
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> prop-073-v003: Automatic allocation/assignment of IPv6
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
>
> Authors: Terry Manderson
> <terry@terrym.net>
>
> Andy Linton
> <asjl@lpnz.org>
>
> Version: 3
>
> Date: 19 August 2009
>
>> 1. Introduction
> ----------------
>
> This is a proposal to simplify the criteria for a member requesting an
> initial block of IPv6 addresses where the member already has an IPv4
> assignment or allocation.
>
> Under this proposal, APNIC would reserve the appropriately sized IPv6
> block for each APNIC member that has IPv4 addresses but does not yet
> have IPv6 addresses.
>
> It is further proposed that members holding IPv4 addresses be able to
> request the IPv6 space reserved for them through a simple one-step
> process.
>
>
> 2. Summary of current problem
> ------------------------------
>
> It is well understood that the final allocations of IPv4 address space
> are drawing very close.
>
> The community and APNIC Secretariat have done much to promote the
> adoption of IPv6. However, the authors recognize that the uptake of IPv6
> is less than ideal. As a result, the community is looking for ways to
> promote the adoption of IPv6 so that it can be added to members' network
> infrastructure.
>
> The authors believe that the current APNIC processes recognize that an
> entity which has satisfied IPv4 criteria has done enough work to be
> assessed for IPv6 resources.
>
> This policy proposal aims to further promote IPv6 adoption by
> simplifying the process of applying to APNIC for IPv6 address space.
>
>
> 3. Situation in other RIRs
> ---------------------------
>
> RIPE:
>
> 2008-02,"Assigning IPv6 PA to Every LIR", a similar, but certainly
> not the same, proposal, was withdrawn by the author due to lack of
> support. There had been concern about the impact on member fees and
> that by issuing IPv6 addresses that hadn't been explicitly requested
> the proposal could make IPv6 a commodity.
>
> http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2008-02.html
>
> ARIN:> ARIN region but we have not identified a formal proposal.
>
> There have been no similar proposals in other regions.
>
>
> 4. Details of the proposal
> ---------------------------
>
> It is proposed that:
>
> 4.1 Alternative criteria be added to the IPv6 allocation and assignment
> policies to allow APNIC members that have IPv4 but no IPv6 space
> to qualify for an appropriately size IPv6 block under the matching
> IPv6 policy.
>
>
> 4.2 The size of the IPv6 delegation for members that meet the
> alternative criteria described in section 4.1 above will be based on
> the following:
>
> - A member that has an IPv4 allocation would be eligible for
> an IPv6 /32
>
> - A member that has received an IPv4 assignment under the
> multihoming policy would be eligible for an IPv6 /48
>
> - A member that has received an IPv4 assignment under the
> IXP or Critical Infrastructure policies would be eligible for
> an IPv6 /48
>
>
> 4.3 APNIC members can request the reserved IPv6 address block be
> allocated/assigned to their member account via a simple mechanism
> in existing APNIC on-line systems.
>
>
> 4.4 The APNIC Secretariat may reserve prefixes for any or all
> qualifying members to allow for a seamless allocation process. It
> is a responsibility of the Secretariat to select an appropriate
> reservation schedule, and as such the reservation of a prefix is
> not fixed in size, scope, nor time.
>
>
> To increase visibility of this proposal, the authors recommend that the
> APNIC Secretariat communicate to members and others that the criteria
> for receiving IPv6 space has been reduced and that the process of
> obtaining IPv6 address space has been made simpler. We recommend this to
> show that there is no effective barrier to members obtaining IPv6
> addresses.
>
> Current IPv6 policies are still available for members who apply for IPv6
> addresses without existing IPv4 addresses, or who apply for subsequent
> IPv6 resources.
>
>
> 5. Advantages and disadvantages of the proposal
> ------------------------------------------------>
> 5.1 Advantages
>
> This proposal:
>
> - Allows APNIC to engage with all IPv4 resource holders alerting
> them to the need to start work on deploying IPv6 addressing.
>
> - Pre-approves IPv6 resource delegations based on existing IPv4
> holdings.
>
> - Increases member benefit by avoiding duplication and effort in
> applying to APNIC for IPv6 when they have already demonstrated
> their network needs for an IPv4 delegation.
>
> - Removes another barrier to IPv6 adoption by providing all eligible
> organizations with an IPv6 assignment or allocation through a
> simple request.
>
>
> 5.2 Disadvantages
>
> This proposal does not deal with the need to encourage holders
> of "Historic Internet resources" to apply for IPv6 address space.
>
>
> 6. Effect on APNIC members
> ---------------------------
>
> 6.1 Fees
>
> No member's fees will increase as a result of this proposal
> because under the APNIC fee schedule, assessed address fees
> are the greater of the IPv4 and IPv6 fees. This proposal was
> careful to ensure that IPv6 delegations would not increase a
> member's annual fees (based on the recently revised APNIC fee
> structure)
>
>
> 6.2 Responsibility
>
> A member would acquire the responsibility to manage
> and maintain a IPv6 allocation in the APNIC registry framework.
>
>
> 6.3 Address/Internet number resource consumption
>
> There are about 1300 current APNIC members that do not hold an IPv6
> allocation. Allocating a /32 to each of these members would result
> in a maximum of /22 to /21 of IPv6 address space allocated if> all 1300 members requested space.
>
> The actual allocation would be less than this as some members would
> receive a /48.
>
>
> 7. Effect on NIRs
> ------------------
>
> The impact on any NIR would depend if the NIR adopts this proposal for
> their constituency.
>
> * 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
>
--
Ren-Hung Hwang
Professor
Dept. of Computer Science & Information Engineering
National Chung Cheng Univ.
Chia-Yi, Taiwan, 621
http://exodus.cs.ccu.edu.tw/~rhhwang
WebOffice: http://mmc.elearning.ccu.edu.tw/home/rhhwang
* 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
21 Aug
3:43 a.m.
Kenny,
Thanks for considering the proposal.
Cheers Terry
On 20/08/2009, at 12:35 PM, Kenny Huang wrote:
The revised version is clear and sound. I support this proposal.
Regards
Kenny Huang
20 Aug
10:47 p.m.
Professor Hwang,
Thanks for reviewing the proposal and providing feedback!
Cheers Terry
On 20/08/2009, at 2:10 AM, Ren-Hung Hwang wrote:
Hi Terry, Andy, I support this revised version also, it has reflected my previous concern. Thank you, Ren-Hung
Dear SIG members
Version 3 of the proposal "Automatic allocation/assignment of
IPv6" has
been sent to the Policy SIG for review. It will be presented at the Policy SIG at APNIC 28 in Beijing, China, 25-28 August 2009.
More about the proposal can be found at:
http://www.apnic.net/community/policy/proposalsThis new version of the proposal reflects feedback from the
community
received on the Policy SIG mailing list:
- Section 4.2 of version 2 has been removed in this thirdversion
and the subsequent sections renumbered accordingly. - Section 4.3 from version 2 (now section 4.2) has beenamended to
reflect the removal of section 4.2 from version 2. - A new section 4.4 has been added to suggest that it is at the APNIC Secretariat's discretion to reserve IPv6 blocks under this proposal.We encourage you to express your views on the proposal:
- Do you support or oppose this proposal? - Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear? - What changes could be made to this proposal to make itmore
effective?Randy, Jian and Ching-Heng
prop-073-v003: Automatic allocation/assignment of IPv6
Authors: Terry Manderson terry@terrym.net
Andy Linton <asjl@lpnz.org>Version: 3
Date: 19 August 2009
- Introduction
This is a proposal to simplify the criteria for a member
requesting an
initial block of IPv6 addresses where the member already has an IPv4 assignment or allocation.
Under this proposal, APNIC would reserve the appropriately sized
IPv6
block for each APNIC member that has IPv4 addresses but does not yet have IPv6 addresses.
It is further proposed that members holding IPv4 addresses be able
to
request the IPv6 space reserved for them through a simple one-step process.
- Summary of current problem
It is well understood that the final allocations of IPv4 address
space
are drawing very close.
The community and APNIC Secretariat have done much to promote the adoption of IPv6. However, the authors recognize that the uptake
of IPv6
is less than ideal. As a result, the community is looking for ways
to
promote the adoption of IPv6 so that it can be added to members'
network
infrastructure.
The authors believe that the current APNIC processes recognize
that an
entity which has satisfied IPv4 criteria has done enough work to be assessed for IPv6 resources.
This policy proposal aims to further promote IPv6 adoption by simplifying the process of applying to APNIC for IPv6 address space.
- Situation in other RIRs
RIPE:
2008-02,"Assigning IPv6 PA to Every LIR", a similar, butcertainly
not the same, proposal, was withdrawn by the author due tolack of
support. There had been concern about the impact on memberfees and
that by issuing IPv6 addresses that hadn't been explicitlyrequested
the proposal could make IPv6 a commodity. http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2008-02.htmlARIN: ARIN region but we have not identified a formal proposal.
There have been no similar proposals in other regions.
- Details of the proposal
It is proposed that:
4.1 Alternative criteria be added to the IPv6 allocation and
assignment
policies to allow APNIC members that have IPv4 but no IPv6space
to qualify for an appropriately size IPv6 block under thematching
IPv6 policy.4.2 The size of the IPv6 delegation for members that meet the alternative criteria described in section 4.1 above will be
based on
the following: - A member that has an IPv4 allocation would be eligible for an IPv6 /32 - A member that has received an IPv4 assignment under the multihoming policy would be eligible for an IPv6 /48 - A member that has received an IPv4 assignment under the IXP or Critical Infrastructure policies would be eligible for an IPv6 /484.3 APNIC members can request the reserved IPv6 address block be allocated/assigned to their member account via a simple
mechanism
in existing APNIC on-line systems.4.4 The APNIC Secretariat may reserve prefixes for any or all qualifying members to allow for a seamless allocation
process. It
is a responsibility of the Secretariat to select anappropriate
reservation schedule, and as such the reservation of aprefix is
not fixed in size, scope, nor time.To increase visibility of this proposal, the authors recommend
that the
APNIC Secretariat communicate to members and others that the
criteria
for receiving IPv6 space has been reduced and that the process of obtaining IPv6 address space has been made simpler. We recommend
this to
show that there is no effective barrier to members obtaining IPv6 addresses.
Current IPv6 policies are still available for members who apply
for IPv6
addresses without existing IPv4 addresses, or who apply for
subsequent
IPv6 resources.
- Advantages and disadvantages of the proposal
5.1 Advantages
This proposal: - Allows APNIC to engage with all IPv4 resource holdersalerting
them to the need to start work on deploying IPv6 addressing. - Pre-approves IPv6 resource delegations based on existing IPv4 holdings. - Increases member benefit by avoiding duplication and effortin
applying to APNIC for IPv6 when they have alreadydemonstrated
their network needs for an IPv4 delegation. - Removes another barrier to IPv6 adoption by providing alleligible
organizations with an IPv6 assignment or allocation through a simple request.5.2 Disadvantages
This proposal does not deal with the need to encourage holders of "Historic Internet resources" to apply for IPv6 addressspace.
- Effect on APNIC members
6.1 Fees
No member's fees will increase as a result of this proposal because under the APNIC fee schedule, assessed address fees are the greater of the IPv4 and IPv6 fees. This proposal was careful to ensure that IPv6 delegations would not increase a member's annual fees (based on the recently revised APNIC fee structure)6.2 Responsibility
A member would acquire the responsibility to manage and maintain a IPv6 allocation in the APNIC registry framework.6.3 Address/Internet number resource consumption
There are about 1300 current APNIC members that do not holdan IPv6
allocation. Allocating a /32 to each of these members wouldresult
in a maximum of /22 to /21 of IPv6 address space allocated if all 1300 members requested space. The actual allocation would be less than this as some memberswould
receive a /48.
- Effect on NIRs
The impact on any NIR would depend if the NIR adopts this proposal
for
their constituency.
sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource managementpolicy *
sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
-- Ren-Hung Hwang Professor Dept. of Computer Science & Information Engineering National Chung Cheng Univ. Chia-Yi, Taiwan, 621 http://exodus.cs.ccu.edu.tw/~rhhwang WebOffice: http://mmc.elearning.ccu.edu.tw/home/rhhwang
sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource managementpolicy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
Activity Summary
- 5219 days inactive
- 5219 days old
- sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
- 3 participants
- 3 comments