Orbit

Hi Geoff,

Geoff Huston wrote:

Hi,

...

The following is my idea for the initial allocation.

1. to an applicant for initial allocation "without" any specific IPv6 deployment plan (network design), but an applicant has their intention to provide IPv6 service in near future

-> allocate /32

This is the current IPv6 policy as I understand it. No change is proposed to this minimum allocation size.

No change in policy-wise, I know. But in the current operation of allocating the initial block is, seems like to me, that RIR gives a block to LIR just saying "Hey, I am going to provide IPv6 service to the current IPv4 customers in the size of x million. but there is no concrete IPv6 network design yet."

RIR did not restrict to give /32 to that kind of applicants, right? Or RIR require to show their IPv6 service deployment plan to examine when RIR allocate a larger size of block than /32?

...

2. to an applicant for initail allocation "with" their IPv6 service plan and network design based on their current IPv4 customers

-> judge the minimum initial allocation size just accomodating enough number of /48s in their planned.

But how does one calculate "just accommodating enough number of /48s"??? The policy points to the use of the HD Ratio as the means of calculating this quantity of "enough".

I do not think so. HD-ratio is just set to say "you reached the number of registering /48s upto xx. now, you are eligible to request sub-allocation only-if you need larger address block which you are currently allocated."

Enough address space comes from the IPv6 network design to accomodate the IPv4 users + additional new service they plan if existing. LIR can figure out how many /48s necessary for that service. If they cannot do, they can just start with the minimum /32 until they can figure it out.

Then, if they need 200 million, allocate /26. simple. Not giving /21 by HD-ratio table. Later on, if they like to have addtional space, once they progress to reach the number of registering /48s to about 200,000 (by HD-ratio 0.8 applied) then they can request to have an addition /26 block (to become /25 in total). HD-ratio is applied only in the case of sub-allocation. Not at the initial allocation. It will save 4-5 bits, which is enough to extend the IPv6 life-time doubled, don't you think?

Kosuke

So if you are operating

a mass market retail offering with, say, around 5 Million customers, then the HD Ratio of 0.8 would indicate an IPv6 address allocation of a /20, or some 268 million /48 address blocks. i.e. a utilization efficiency of 2%. This does appear to be a extremely low efficiency number when the intent is to "just accomodating enough number of /48s in their planned", as you point out.

...

for both cases: when the applicant need to expand the network size later, once they register enough number of /48s for sub-allocation criterion set by the HD-Ratio table, they can automatically have the sub-allocation block which is the same size of initial allocation as the current policy (i.e., the total block would be doubled) * in this case, HD-Ratio of 0.8 is good for LIRs.

The issue is that this 0.8 ratio raises real concerns relating to the total consumption rate of IPv6 addresses, and there are conceivable scenarios that see a risk of complete consumption of IPv6 address space within a period of some 50 - 70 years.

I won't repeat it here, but one of the referenced documents studies this at some length and looks at the issues that may arise as a consequence (http://www.potaroo.net/ispcol/2005-07/ipv6size.html). Its worth a read as a background documents relating to this proposal.

The issue here is balancing short and longer term objectives within the IPv6 address plan, and while a very liberal assignment policy certainly meets short term desires, there are longer term consequences. These include the increased risk of premature address exhaustion. The consequent issue is that of the continued erosion of perceptions of stability, robustness and sanity related to IPv6 investment by industry players, as it is industry who will be called upon to make significant investments in this particular technology. The larger the sums involved the more conservative they tend to get, and they are already very conservative these days. So if the message is "well, we will start out this way, but if it all works out as we anticipate and IPv6 gets very widely deployed then we'll need to change the address plan on the fly", then I'm afraid that we will be doing noone a favour! We've already been there and done that with IPv4, and the result has been pretty bad from quite a set of perspectives.

regards,

Geoff

...

Save Vocea wrote:

...

Dear colleagues APNIC welcomes comments, questions, and suggestions on the following policy proposal: ____________________ Final call for comments: [prop-031-v002] "Proposal to amend APNIC IPv6 assignment and utilisation requirement policy" ____________________ This is the final call for comments on policy proposal [prop-031-v002] "Proposal to amend APNIC IPv6 assignment and utilisation requirement policy". Version one of this proposal was discussed at APNIC 20. The proposal to amend the IPv6 HD ratio from 0.8 to 0.94 reached consensus and is now documented in [prop-031-v002]. Other parts of proposal [prop-031-v001] did not reach consensus. Regarding the amendment of the IPv6 HD ratio, the following consensus was reached: "The SIG accepted by consensus the proposed policy process, which requires the text proposal to be sent to the mailing list one month before the meeting, an eight week comment period on the mailing list after the meeting, and final endorsement from EC." This proposal is now submitted to the sig-policy mailing list for an eight week discussion period. At the end of that period, if consensus appears to have been achieved, the Chair of the Policy SIG will ask the Executive Council to endorse the proposal for implementation.

• Send all comments and questions to: sig-policy@apnic.net
• Deadline for comments: 16 November 2005

---

Proposal details _____________________________________________________________________ Authors: Stephan Millet <stephan (a) telstra.net> Geoff Huston <gih (a) apnic.net> Version: 2.0 Date: 19 September 2005 Purpose

---

To amend the APNIC IPv6 address allocation policies regarding the definition of the threshold value for end-site allocation efficiency. These measures, if undertaken generally by all RIRs, and assuming that further measures are undertaken by the addressing community regarding the general adoption of an end-site allocation size that would be substantially smaller than the existing default value of a /48, would increase the anticipated useful lifetime of IPv6 to encompass a period in excess of 100 years, in which case no further allocation policy changes would be anticipated.

Proposal

To amend the IPv6 threshold end site allocation utilisation level to that matching an HD Ratio value of 0.94.

Impact summary

End users: There is no impact arising from this policy proposal.

ISPs and LIRs: With the higher threshold end-site allocation efficiency level, when based on a 0.94 HD Ratio, ISPs will need to undertake network address plans according to this target level.

NIRs: These proposed policy changes are not anticipated to have any impact on NIR operation, other than implementation of a 0.94 density metric to replace the existing 0.80 value, as per APNIC policy.

APNIC: APNIC will need to amend its IPv6 criteria to reflect the altered HD ratio.

Background material

This material is not formally part of the policy proposal. It is included here only for informational purposes.

1. Paper: The IPv6 Address Plan http://www.potaroo.net/ispcol/2005-07/ipv6size.html Geoff Huston
2. Internet Draft: draft-narten-iana-rir-ipv6-considerations-00.txt http://draft-narten-iana-rir-ipv6-considerations.potaroo.net/ Thomas Narten
3. Internet Draft: draft-narten-ipv6-3177bis-48boundary-00.txt http://draft-narten-ipv6-3177bis-48boundary.potaroo.net/ Thomas Narten Geoff Huston Lea Roberts

---

References ____________________ Proposal details including full text of proposal, presentations, links to relevant meeting minutes, and links to mailing list discussions are available at: http://www.apnic.net/docs/policy/proposals/prop-031-v002.html

-- Savenaca Vocea, Policy Development Manager, APNIC save@apnic.net http:// www.apnic.net ph/fx +61 7 3858 3100/99

•          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

-- **********IPv6 Internet Wonderland!************ Kosuke Ito, Master Planning and Steering Group IPv6 Promotion Council of Japan (Visiting Researcher, SFC Lab. KEIO University) Tel:+81-3-5209-4588 Fax:+81-3-3255-9955 Cell:+81-90-4605-4581 mailto: kosuke[at]v6pc.jp http://www.v6pc.jp/ Lifetime e-mail: kosuke[at]stanfordalumni.org

•          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

Toshiyuki Hosaka wrote:

Ito san

Let me allow to clarify few things since there seems to be some typos.

...

I do not think so. HD-ratio is just set to say "you reached the number of registering /48s upto xx. now, you are eligible to request sub-allocation only-if you need larger address block which you are currently allocated."

You mean subsequent allocation, not "sub-allocation". Correct?

Yes, you right. Sorry for confusion.

...

Then, if they need 200 million, allocate /26. simple. Not giving /21 by HD-ratio table.

I believe you meant 2 million, not 200 million.

You right. sorry again.

And if so, you meant to say /27 (not /26), since /27 can accomodate 2,097,152*/48?

I might be looking a wrong line. according to the table in the policy appendix A... yes, it should be /27 (even better).

...

Later on, if they like to have addtional space, once they progress to reach the number of registering /48s to about 200,000 (by HD-ratio 0.8 applied) then they can request to have an addition /26 block (to become /25 in total). HD-ratio is applied only in the case of sub-allocation.

Again, subsequent allocation.

Yes.

...

Not at the initial allocation. It will save 4-5 bits, which is enough to extend the IPv6 life-time doubled, don't you think?

So, to summarize your point, an LIR with 2 million IPv4 customers should receive /27 as an initial allocation which can accomodate 2,097,152 x /48s (while RIRs allocate /21 under current IPv6 policy below.).

Yes, if they do not have any precise IPv6 network design to prove to qualify themselves to apply a larger size of address block.

---

5.1.3. Larger initial allocations

Initial allocations larger than /32 may be justified if:

1. [...]
2. [...]

In either case, an allocation will be made which fulfills the calculated address requirement, _in accordance with the HD-Ratio based utilization policy._

---

You suggested if we change this policy clause we can save 6bits without any change to HD-ratio value. Did I interpret your point correctly?

That is right. Actually, this part has been modified (or added), if my memory is correct, from the original policy, called "Interim" policy in effect in July 2002. This modification caused the current over-size allocation, I believe.

Thank you for your kind pointing out my mistakes.

Kosuke

best regards, Toshi

-------- Original Message -------- From: Kosuke Ito kosuke@bugest.net To: Geoff Huston gih@apnic.net Subject: Re:[sig-policy] Final call for comments: [prop-031-v002] "Proposal to amend APNIC IPv6 assignment and utilisation requirement policy" Date: 2005/9/23 03:07

...

Hi Geoff,

Geoff Huston wrote:

...

Hi,

...

The following is my idea for the initial allocation.

1. to an applicant for initial allocation "without" any specific IPv6 deployment plan (network design), but an applicant has their intention to provide IPv6 service in near future

-> allocate /32

This is the current IPv6 policy as I understand it. No change is proposed to this minimum allocation size.

No change in policy-wise, I know. But in the current operation of allocating the initial block is, seems like to me, that RIR gives a block to LIR just saying "Hey, I am going to provide IPv6 service to the current IPv4 customers in the size of x million. but there is no concrete IPv6 network design yet."

RIR did not restrict to give /32 to that kind of applicants, right? Or RIR require to show their IPv6 service deployment plan to examine when RIR allocate a larger size of block than /32?

...

...

2. to an applicant for initail allocation "with" their IPv6 service plan and network design based on their current IPv4 customers

-> judge the minimum initial allocation size just accomodating enough number of /48s in their planned.

But how does one calculate "just accommodating enough number of /48s"??? The policy points to the use of the HD Ratio as the means of calculating this quantity of "enough".

I do not think so. HD-ratio is just set to say "you reached the number of registering /48s upto xx. now, you are eligible to request sub-allocation only-if you need larger address block which you are currently allocated."

Enough address space comes from the IPv6 network design to accomodate the IPv4 users + additional new service they plan if existing. LIR can figure out how many /48s necessary for that service. If they cannot do, they can just start with the minimum /32 until they can figure it out.

Then, if they need 200 million, allocate /26. simple. Not giving /21 by HD-ratio table. Later on, if they like to have addtional space, once they progress to reach the number of registering /48s to about 200,000 (by HD-ratio 0.8 applied) then they can request to have an addition /26 block (to become /25 in total). HD-ratio is applied only in the case of sub-allocation. Not at the initial allocation. It will save 4-5 bits, which is enough to extend the IPv6 life-time doubled, don't you think?

Kosuke

So if you are operating

...

a mass market retail offering with, say, around 5 Million customers, then the HD Ratio of 0.8 would indicate an IPv6 address allocation of a /20, or some 268 million /48 address blocks. i.e. a utilization efficiency of 2%. This does appear to be a extremely low efficiency number when the intent is to "just accomodating enough number of /48s in their planned", as you point out.

...

for both cases: when the applicant need to expand the network size later, once they register enough number of /48s for sub-allocation criterion set by the HD-Ratio table, they can automatically have the sub-allocation block which is the same size of initial allocation as the current policy (i.e., the total block would be doubled) * in this case, HD-Ratio of 0.8 is good for LIRs.

The issue is that this 0.8 ratio raises real concerns relating to the total consumption rate of IPv6 addresses, and there are conceivable scenarios that see a risk of complete consumption of IPv6 address space within a period of some 50 - 70 years.

I won't repeat it here, but one of the referenced documents studies this at some length and looks at the issues that may arise as a consequence (http://www.potaroo.net/ispcol/2005-07/ipv6size.html). Its worth a read as a background documents relating to this proposal.

The issue here is balancing short and longer term objectives within the IPv6 address plan, and while a very liberal assignment policy certainly meets short term desires, there are longer term consequences. These include the increased risk of premature address exhaustion. The consequent issue is that of the continued erosion of perceptions of stability, robustness and sanity related to IPv6 investment by industry players, as it is industry who will be called upon to make significant investments in this particular technology. The larger the sums involved the more conservative they tend to get, and they are already very conservative these days. So if the message is "well, we will start out this way, but if it all works out as we anticipate and IPv6 gets very widely deployed then we'll need to change the address plan on the fly", then I'm afraid that we will be doing noone a favour! We've already been there and done that with IPv4, and the result has been pretty bad from quite a set of perspectives.

regards,

Geoff

...

Save Vocea wrote:

...

Dear colleagues APNIC welcomes comments, questions, and suggestions on the following policy proposal: ____________________ Final call for comments: [prop-031-v002] "Proposal to amend APNIC IPv6 assignment and utilisation requirement policy" ____________________ This is the final call for comments on policy proposal [prop-031-v002] "Proposal to amend APNIC IPv6 assignment and utilisation requirement policy". Version one of this proposal was discussed at APNIC 20. The proposal to amend the IPv6 HD ratio from 0.8 to 0.94 reached consensus and is now documented in [prop-031-v002]. Other parts of proposal [prop-031-v001] did not reach consensus. Regarding the amendment of the IPv6 HD ratio, the following consensus was reached: "The SIG accepted by consensus the proposed policy process, which requires the text proposal to be sent to the mailing list one month before the meeting, an eight week comment period on the mailing list after the meeting, and final endorsement from EC." This proposal is now submitted to the sig-policy mailing list for an eight week discussion period. At the end of that period, if consensus appears to have been achieved, the Chair of the Policy SIG will ask the Executive Council to endorse the proposal for implementation.

• Send all comments and questions to: sig-policy@apnic.net
• Deadline for comments: 16 November 2005

---

Proposal details _____________________________________________________________________ Authors: Stephan Millet <stephan (a) telstra.net> Geoff Huston <gih (a) apnic.net> Version: 2.0 Date: 19 September 2005 Purpose

---

To amend the APNIC IPv6 address allocation policies regarding the definition of the threshold value for end-site allocation efficiency. These measures, if undertaken generally by all RIRs, and assuming that further measures are undertaken by the addressing community regarding the general adoption of an end-site allocation size that would be substantially smaller than the existing default value of a /48, would increase the anticipated useful lifetime of IPv6 to encompass a period in excess of 100 years, in which case no further allocation policy changes would be anticipated.

Proposal

To amend the IPv6 threshold end site allocation utilisation level to that matching an HD Ratio value of 0.94.

Impact summary

End users: There is no impact arising from this policy proposal.

ISPs and LIRs: With the higher threshold end-site allocation efficiency level, when based on a 0.94 HD Ratio, ISPs will need to undertake network address plans according to this target level.

NIRs: These proposed policy changes are not anticipated to have any impact on NIR operation, other than implementation of a 0.94 density metric to replace the existing 0.80 value, as per APNIC policy.

APNIC: APNIC will need to amend its IPv6 criteria to reflect the altered HD ratio.

Background material

This material is not formally part of the policy proposal. It is included here only for informational purposes.

1. Paper: The IPv6 Address Plan http://www.potaroo.net/ispcol/2005-07/ipv6size.html Geoff Huston
2. Internet Draft: draft-narten-iana-rir-ipv6-considerations-00.txt http://draft-narten-iana-rir-ipv6-considerations.potaroo.net/ Thomas Narten
3. Internet Draft: draft-narten-ipv6-3177bis-48boundary-00.txt http://draft-narten-ipv6-3177bis-48boundary.potaroo.net/ Thomas Narten Geoff Huston Lea Roberts

---

References ____________________ Proposal details including full text of proposal, presentations, links to relevant meeting minutes, and links to mailing list discussions are available at: http://www.apnic.net/docs/policy/proposals/prop-031-v002.html

-- Savenaca Vocea, Policy Development Manager, APNIC save@apnic.net http:// www.apnic.net ph/fx +61 7 3858 3100/99

•          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

-- **********IPv6 Internet Wonderland!************ Kosuke Ito, Master Planning and Steering Group IPv6 Promotion Council of Japan (Visiting Researcher, SFC Lab. KEIO University) Tel:+81-3-5209-4588 Fax:+81-3-3255-9955 Cell:+81-90-4605-4581 mailto: kosuke[at]v6pc.jp http://www.v6pc.jp/ Lifetime e-mail: kosuke[at]stanfordalumni.org

•          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 David,

(Perhaps confusingly) the proposal as presented in Hanoi made no mention whatsoever of the APNIC membership fee structure.

One interpretation, as you have provided below, is that the IPv6 fee structure would change 'automatically' in response to this change in the HD ratio value.

Another interpretation is that nothing has changed in the APNIC IPv6 fee structure, and that an explicit proposal would need to be made to propose aligning the IPv6 fee structure with the IPv6 allocation policy in the event that APNIC formally adopts this proposed IPv6 allocation policy

I suggest that the latter interpretation is the case.

The reason why there was no explicit inclusion of consideration of fees in this proposal was that the proposal is part of an effort to adopt a coordinated IPv6 allocation policy across all 5 RIRs, and the formal adoption of this proposal in APNIC is conditional on adoption of the same policy in the other RIRs. So there are some more rounds of coordination, consultation and consideration ahead of us yet, and there is ample time to consider in these APNIC forums what is the best way to relate this proposed policy to the APNIC membership fee schedule as it relates to IPv6 address resource holdings. Perhaps you already have some thoughts on this topic you may want to share with us here as a way of starting to figure out what the best measure may be for APNIC?

kind regards,

Geoff

At 12:46 AM 29/09/2005, David Chen wrote:

Hi all, I'm David Chen. I would like to confirm that if IPv6 HD ratio is amended from 0.8 to 0.94, will the utilisation be changed to a higher number under HD 0.94 in the fee schedule? As I know in the APNIC fee schedule, IPv6 per-address fee is calculated according to current HD ratio requirement. http://www.apnic.net/docs/corpdocs/member-fee-schedule.html. Following this rule, it would be a big influence on per-address fee. For example, The utilisation number of /48s for /32 under HD ratio 0.8 is 7,132. The total per-address fee payable for an allocation of /32 to a "Very Large" member is calculated as : 7,132 * 0.03 = $213.96

If under HD ratio 0.94, then the utilisation number of /48s for /32 is around 33,690. The total per-address fee payable for an allocation of /32 to a "Very Large" member is calculated as : 33,690 * 0.03 = $1,010.7

Am I right? Please clarify this for me, thanks.

Regards,

David Chen

Save Vocea wrote:

...

Dear colleagues

APNIC welcomes comments, questions, and suggestions on the following policy proposal:

---

Final call for comments: [prop-031-v002] "Proposal to amend APNIC IPv6 assignment and utilisation requirement policy" ____________________

This is the final call for comments on policy proposal [prop-031-v002] "Proposal to amend APNIC IPv6 assignment and utilisation requirement policy".

Version one of this proposal was discussed at APNIC 20. The proposal to amend the IPv6 HD ratio from 0.8 to 0.94 reached consensus and is now documented in [prop-031-v002]. Other parts of proposal [prop-031-v001] did not reach consensus.

Regarding the amendment of the IPv6 HD ratio, the following consensus was reached:

"The SIG accepted by consensus the proposed policy process, which requires the text proposal to be sent to the mailing list one month before the meeting, an eight week comment period on the mailing list after the meeting, and final endorsement from EC."

This proposal is now submitted to the sig-policy mailing list for an eight week discussion period. At the end of that period, if consensus appears to have been achieved, the Chair of the Policy SIG will ask the Executive Council to endorse the proposal for implementation.

• Send all comments and questions to: sig-policy@apnic.net
• Deadline for comments: 16 November 2005

---

Proposal details _____________________________________________________________________

Authors: Stephan Millet <stephan (a) telstra.net> Geoff Huston <gih (a) apnic.net>

Version: 2.0

Date: 19 September 2005

Purpose

To amend the APNIC IPv6 address allocation policies regarding the definition of the threshold value for end-site allocation efficiency.

These measures, if undertaken generally by all RIRs, and assuming that further measures are undertaken by the addressing community regarding the general adoption of an end-site allocation size that would be substantially smaller than the existing default value of a /48, would increase the anticipated useful lifetime of IPv6 to encompass a period in excess of 100 years, in which case no further allocation policy changes would be anticipated.

Proposal

To amend the IPv6 threshold end site allocation utilisation level to that matching an HD Ratio value of 0.94.

Impact summary

End users:

There is no impact arising from this policy proposal.

ISPs and LIRs:

With the higher threshold end-site allocation efficiency level,
when based on a 0.94 HD Ratio, ISPs will need to undertake network
address plans according to this target level.

NIRs:

These proposed policy changes are not anticipated to have any

impact on NIR operation, other than implementation of a 0.94 density metric to replace the existing 0.80 value, as per APNIC policy.

APNIC:

APNIC will need to amend its IPv6 criteria to reflect the altered
HD ratio.

Background material

This material is not formally part of the policy proposal. It is included here only for informational purposes.

1. Paper: The IPv6 Address Plan http://www.potaroo.net/ispcol/2005-07/ipv6size.html Geoff Huston

2. Internet Draft: draft-narten-iana-rir-ipv6-considerations-00.txt http://draft-narten-iana-rir-ipv6-considerations.potaroo.net/ Thomas Narten

3. Internet Draft: draft-narten-ipv6-3177bis-48boundary-00.txt http://draft-narten-ipv6-3177bis-48boundary.potaroo.net/ Thomas Narten Geoff Huston Lea Roberts

---

References ____________________

Proposal details including full text of proposal, presentations, links to relevant meeting minutes, and links to mailing list discussions are available at:

 http://www.apnic.net/docs/policy/proposals/prop-031-v002.html

-- Savenaca Vocea, Policy Development Manager, APNIC save@apnic.net http:// www.apnic.net ph/fx +61 7 3858 3100/99

•          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-nir mailing list sig-nir@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-nir

I agree with Randy here, and as co-author of the original APNIC proposal, here's some initial personal thoughts on this topic:

It would make sense to me that when this proposal returns to APNIC in February that it has an associated proposal relating to membership fees. The most direct way to do this is to attempt to preserve two components of the current fee structure, namely that:

1. That the minimum IPv6 allocation would have the same membership fee as it has at present

and

2. That for holding above the minimum allocation unit, that same number of 'useable' end hosts (i.e. application of the 0.94 HD ratio to the total holding) attract the same fee as the same number of useable end hosts would under the current 0.8 HD ratio

Does this appear to be a useful / fair / reasonable / rational starting point for consideration?

regards,

Geoff

At 09:02 AM 29/09/2005, Randy Bush wrote:

...

Another interpretation is that nothing has changed in the APNIC IPv6 fee structure, and that an explicit proposal would need to be made to propose aligning the IPv6 fee structure with the IPv6 allocation policy in the event that APNIC formally adopts this proposed IPv6 allocation policy

perhaps, analogous to some folk's suggestions in the nir paf discussion, the on-going financial fix could be part of this proposal before it is finalized?

[ american (and general english?) idiom time again: what's good for the goose is good for the gander ]

randy

Dear Geoff and Randy,

Thank you very much for your reply.

I agree with Kenny. At this stage, we just focus on the HD ratio amendment. I think IPv6 fee schedule or financial issue could be postponed to next meeting or forum discussion.

Best Regards,

David Chen

Kenny Huang wrote:

Dear Geoff and Randy:

The current practice in Policy SIG is, normally fee or financial issue was not addressed, although the boundary of policy interests is not clearly defined. However, it is worthy to have input from the community to assess the appropriateness of having proposal with finanacial implication.

Best Regards

Kenny Huang huangk@alum.sinica.edu

-----Original Message----- From: sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net [mailto:sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net] On Behalf Of Geoff Huston Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2005 11:51 AM To: Randy Bush Cc: sig-nir@apnic.net; sig-policy@apnic.net Subject: Re: [sig-nir] Re: [sig-policy] Final call for comments:[prop-031-v002] "Proposal to amend APNIC IPv6 assignment andutilisation requirement policy"

I agree with Randy here, and as co-author of the original APNIC proposal, here's some initial personal thoughts on this topic:

It would make sense to me that when this proposal returns to APNIC in February that it has an associated proposal relating to membership fees. The most direct way to do this is to attempt to preserve two components of the current fee structure, namely that:

1. That the minimum IPv6 allocation would have the same membership fee as it has at present

and

2. That for holding above the minimum allocation unit, that same number of

'useable' end hosts (i.e. application of the 0.94 HD ratio to the total holding) attract the same fee as the same number of useable end hosts would under the current 0.8 HD ratio

Does this appear to be a useful / fair / reasonable / rational starting point for consideration?

regards,

Geoff

At 09:02 AM 29/09/2005, Randy Bush wrote:

...

...

Another interpretation is that nothing has changed in the APNIC IPv6 fee structure, and that an explicit proposal would need to be made to propose aligning the IPv6 fee structure with the IPv6 allocation policy in the event that APNIC formally adopts this proposed IPv6 allocation policy

perhaps, analogous to some folk's suggestions in the nir paf discussion, the on-going financial fix could be part of this proposal before it is finalized?

[ american (and general english?) idiom time again: what's good for the goose is good for the gander ]

randy

•          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