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 "prop-121: Updating “Initial IPv6 allocation” policy" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.
It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting at APNIC 44 which will be held in Taichung, Taiwan on Wednesday and Thursday, 14 & 15 September 2017.
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 express your views on the proposal:
- Do you support or oppose this proposal? - Does this proposal solve a problem you are experiencing? If so, tell the community about your situation. - Do you see any disadvantages in 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?
Information about this proposal is available at:
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-121
Regards
Sumon, Ching-Heng, Bertrand APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
prop-121-v001: Updating “Initial IPv6 allocation” policy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposer: Jordi Palet Martinez jordi.palet@consulintel.es
Problem Statement -----------------
The actual policy text (9.2.2. Account holders without existing IPv4 space) is assuming that an LIR will have more than 200 customers over a period of 2 years, or it is already an IPv4 LIR.
However, it is a perfectly valid possibility to have small LIRs, which may be never will have 200 customers, for example they may have a dozen of big enterprise customers, or they may be a new LIR, not having any IPv4 addresses (we all know the run-out problem) or may choose to use a limited number of IPv4 addresses from their upstream providers, because they don’t intend to provide IPv4 services.
It is also possible that the LIR is planning for a longer term than just 2 years, for example a government with a national network which may take a longer period to deploy, connecting all kind of institutions at different levels (ministries, schools, health centres, municipalities, other public institutions, etc.).
Objective of policy change --------------------------
To make sure that the policy is aligned with a wider set of possible IPv6 deployment cases, including those indicated in the previous section and facilitate the justification of the allocation/assignment size if a bigger address block (versus the default one) is requested.
Situation in other regions -------------------------- This situation, concretely in the case of big initial IPv6 allocations to governments, has already occurred in RIPE, and the policy was updated to be able to make those allocations. In some cases, a few governments got delayed their deployments several years because the lack of an appropriate policy covering their case.
Proposed policy solution ------------------------
Change some of the actual text as follows.
Actual text:
9.2.2. Account holders without existing IPv4 space
To qualify for an initial allocation of IPv6 address space, an organization must:
1. Be an LIR 2. Not be an end site 3. Plan to provide IPv6 connectivity to organizations to which it will make assignments. 4. Meet one of the two following criteria:
- Have a plan for making at least 200 assignments to other organizations within two years, or
- Be an existing LIR with IPv4 allocations from APNIC or an NIR, which will make IPv6 assignments or sub-allocations to other organizations and announce the allocation in the inter- domain routing system within two years.
Private networks (those not connected to the public Internet) may also be eligible for an IPv6 address space allocation provided they meet equivalent criteria to those listed above.
New text:
9.2.2. Account holders without existing IPv4 space
To qualify for an initial allocation of IPv6 address space, an organization must:
1. Be an LIR 2. Not be an end site 3. Plan, within two years, to provide IPv6 connectivity to other organizations/end-users to which it will make assignments.
The allocation size, in case an address block bigger than the default one (as indicated in 9.2.1.) is requested, will be based on the number of users, the extent of the organisation's infrastructure, the hierarchical and geographical structuring of the organisation, the segmentation of infrastructure for security and the planned longevity of the allocation.
Private networks (those not connected to the public Internet) may also be eligible for an IPv6 address space allocation provided they meet equivalent criteria to those listed above.
Advantages of the proposal --------------------------
Fulfilling the objective above indicated, so allowing a more realistic alignment of the policy text with market reality under the IPv4 exhaustion situation.
Disadvantages of the proposal ----------------------------- Possible abuse of the policy, which may be done equally creating new LIRs, and it is expected that the evaluation process of a request from APNIC will avoid it.
Impact on resource holders -------------------------- None.
References ---------- Links to the RIPE and LACNIC texts on request.
_______________________________________________ Sig-policy-chair mailing list Sig-policy-chair@apnic.net https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy-chair
Attachments:
- 00.txt (text/plain — 5.6 KB)
Dear Colleagues,
I am Satoru Tsurumaki from Policy Working Group in Japan.
I would like to share key feedback in our community for prop-121, based on a meeting we organised on 5th Sep to discuss these proposals.
Many opposing comments were expressed on the proposal with reasons below.
* Under the current criteria, networks with IPv4 can receive IPv6 easily. However, with adoption of this proposal, this consideration based on IPv4 network will be removed, and the policy could become more strict for some applications.
* Would like to confirm how specifically APNIC secretariat will evaluate requests under this policy. The criteria becomes ambiguous with this proposal which would make it harder for applications to prepare for the evaluation.
* Approach may not be the right one to achieve the objective of IPv6 promotion
* From the current IPv6 allocation criteria, it is unlikely to have many cases where criteria. d is being the barrier to receive IPv6 space.
Best Regards,
Satoru Tsurumaki Policy Working Group Japan Open Policy Forum
2017-08-09 15:19 GMT+09:00 chku chku@twnic.net.tw:
Dear SIG members
The proposal "prop-121: Updating “Initial IPv6 allocation” policy" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.
It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting at APNIC 44 which will be held in Taichung, Taiwan on Wednesday and Thursday, 14 & 15 September 2017.
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 express your views on the proposal:
- Do you support or oppose this proposal?
- Does this proposal solve a problem you are experiencing? If so, tell the community about your situation.
- Do you see any disadvantages in 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?
Information about this proposal is available at:
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-121Regards
Sumon, Ching-Heng, Bertrand APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
prop-121-v001: Updating “Initial IPv6 allocation” policy
Proposer: Jordi Palet Martinez jordi.palet@consulintel.es
Problem Statement
The actual policy text (9.2.2. Account holders without existing IPv4 space) is assuming that an LIR will have more than 200 customers over a period of 2 years, or it is already an IPv4 LIR.
However, it is a perfectly valid possibility to have small LIRs, which may be never will have 200 customers, for example they may have a dozen of big enterprise customers, or they may be a new LIR, not having any IPv4 addresses (we all know the run-out problem) or may choose to use a limited number of IPv4 addresses from their upstream providers, because they don’t intend to provide IPv4 services.
It is also possible that the LIR is planning for a longer term than just 2 years, for example a government with a national network which may take a longer period to deploy, connecting all kind of institutions at different levels (ministries, schools, health centres, municipalities, other public institutions, etc.).
Objective of policy change
To make sure that the policy is aligned with a wider set of possible IPv6 deployment cases, including those indicated in the previous section and facilitate the justification of the allocation/assignment size if a bigger address block (versus the default one) is requested.
Situation in other regions
This situation, concretely in the case of big initial IPv6 allocations to governments, has already occurred in RIPE, and the policy was updated to be able to make those allocations. In some cases, a few governments got delayed their deployments several years because the lack of an appropriate policy covering their case.
Proposed policy solution
Change some of the actual text as follows.
Actual text:
9.2.2. Account holders without existing IPv4 space
To qualify for an initial allocation of IPv6 address space, an organization must:
- Be an LIR
- Not be an end site
- Plan to provide IPv6 connectivity to organizations to which it will make assignments.
- Meet one of the two following criteria:
Have a plan for making at least 200 assignments to other organizations within two years, or
Be an existing LIR with IPv4 allocations from APNIC or an NIR, which
will make IPv6 assignments or sub-allocations to other organizations and announce the allocation in the inter- domain routing system within two years.
Private networks (those not connected to the public Internet) may also be eligible for an IPv6 address space allocation provided they meet equivalent criteria to those listed above.
New text:
9.2.2. Account holders without existing IPv4 space
To qualify for an initial allocation of IPv6 address space, an organization must:
- Be an LIR
- Not be an end site
- Plan, within two years, to provide IPv6 connectivity to other organizations/end-users to which it will make assignments.
The allocation size, in case an address block bigger than the default one (as indicated in 9.2.1.) is requested, will be based on the number of users, the extent of the organisation's infrastructure, the hierarchical and geographical structuring of the organisation, the segmentation of infrastructure for security and the planned longevity of the allocation.
Private networks (those not connected to the public Internet) may also be eligible for an IPv6 address space allocation provided they meet equivalent criteria to those listed above.
Advantages of the proposal
Fulfilling the objective above indicated, so allowing a more realistic alignment of the policy text with market reality under the IPv4 exhaustion situation.
Disadvantages of the proposal
Possible abuse of the policy, which may be done equally creating new LIRs, and it is expected that the evaluation process of a request from APNIC will avoid it.
Impact on resource holders
None.
References
Links to the RIPE and LACNIC texts on request.
Sig-policy-chair mailing list Sig-policy-chair@apnic.net https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy-chair
sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
Hi all,
See my comments below in-line as [Jordi].
Regards, Jordi
-----Mensaje original----- De: sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net en nombre de Satoru Tsurumaki satoru.tsurumaki@g.softbank.co.jp Responder a: satoru.tsurumaki@g.softbank.co.jp Fecha: viernes, 8 de septiembre de 2017, 14:34 Para: SIG policy sig-policy@apnic.net Asunto: Re: [sig-policy] New proposal prop-121: Updating "InitialIPv6 allocation"
Dear Colleagues,
I am Satoru Tsurumaki from Policy Working Group in Japan.
I would like to share key feedback in our community for prop-121, based on a meeting we organised on 5th Sep to discuss these proposals.
Many opposing comments were expressed on the proposal with reasons below.
* Under the current criteria, networks with IPv4 can receive IPv6 easily. However, with adoption of this proposal, this consideration based on IPv4 network will be removed, and the policy could become more strict for some applications.
[Jordi] I think is in the other way around. With the proposal, I’m removing the requirement for “at least 200 customers” (there may be ISPs that have much less number of customers than that) and “be an existing LIR with IPv4 allocations”. There is not more IPv4 space, is not realistic to have such requirement, furthermore, in the short term, I’m sure, there will be IPv6-only ISPs, so again not reason for asking them to have IPv4 allocations.
* Would like to confirm how specifically APNIC secretariat will evaluate requests under this policy. The criteria becomes ambiguous with this proposal which would make it harder for applications to prepare for the evaluation.
[Jordi] This has been running with the same text in RIPE region, and has not been considered as an issue by the staff, so I guess here we can take the advantage of that experience.
* Approach may not be the right one to achieve the objective of IPv6 promotion
[Jordi] I think in the other way around, it facilitates the IPv6 promotion, as it doesn’t require to be a “big” ISP (200 customers) neither to have been an IPv4 one before.
* From the current IPv6 allocation criteria, it is unlikely to have many cases where criteria. d is being the barrier to receive IPv6 space.
[Jordi] Not sure what is criteria d. ? If you mean criteria 4 as in https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/resources#Part-3:-IPv6-Policy (9.2.2. 4), I think I’ve responded to that already with my previous responses?
Best Regards,
Satoru Tsurumaki Policy Working Group Japan Open Policy Forum
2017-08-09 15:19 GMT+09:00 chku chku@twnic.net.tw: > Dear SIG members > > The proposal "prop-121: Updating “Initial IPv6 allocation” policy" has > been sent to the Policy SIG for review. > > It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting at APNIC 44 which will > be held in Taichung, Taiwan on Wednesday and Thursday, 14 & 15 September > 2017. > > 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 > express your views on the proposal: > > - Do you support or oppose this proposal? > - Does this proposal solve a problem you are experiencing? If so, > tell the community about your situation. > - Do you see any disadvantages in 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? > > Information about this proposal is available at: > > http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-121 > > Regards > > Sumon, Ching-Heng, Bertrand > APNIC Policy SIG Chairs > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > prop-121-v001: Updating “Initial IPv6 allocation” policy > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Proposer: Jordi Palet Martinez > jordi.palet@consulintel.es > > Problem Statement > ----------------- > > The actual policy text (9.2.2. Account holders without existing IPv4 > space) is assuming that an LIR will have more than 200 customers over a > period of 2 years, or it is already an IPv4 LIR. > > However, it is a perfectly valid possibility to have small LIRs, which > may be never will have 200 customers, for example they may have a dozen > of big enterprise customers, or they may be a new LIR, not having any > IPv4 addresses (we all know the run-out problem) or may choose to use a > limited number of IPv4 addresses from their upstream providers, because > they don’t intend to provide IPv4 services. > > It is also possible that the LIR is planning for a longer term than just > 2 years, for example a government with a national network which may take > a longer period to deploy, connecting all kind of institutions at > different levels (ministries, schools, health centres, municipalities, > other public institutions, etc.). > > > Objective of policy change > -------------------------- > > To make sure that the policy is aligned with a wider set of possible > IPv6 deployment cases, including those indicated in the previous section > and facilitate the justification of the allocation/assignment size if a > bigger address block (versus the default one) is requested. > > > Situation in other regions > -------------------------- > This situation, concretely in the case of big initial IPv6 allocations > to governments, has already occurred in RIPE, and the policy was updated > to be able to make those allocations. In some cases, a few governments > got delayed their deployments several years because the lack of an > appropriate policy covering their case. > > > Proposed policy solution > ------------------------ > > Change some of the actual text as follows. > > Actual text: > > 9.2.2. Account holders without existing IPv4 space > > To qualify for an initial allocation of IPv6 address space, an > organization must: > > 1. Be an LIR > 2. Not be an end site > 3. Plan to provide IPv6 connectivity to organizations to which it > will make assignments. > 4. Meet one of the two following criteria: > > - Have a plan for making at least 200 assignments to other > organizations within two years, or > > - Be an existing LIR with IPv4 allocations from APNIC or an NIR, which > will make IPv6 assignments or sub-allocations to other organizations > and announce the allocation in the inter- domain routing system within > two years. > > Private networks (those not connected to the public Internet) may also > be eligible for an IPv6 address space allocation provided they meet > equivalent criteria to those listed above. > > > New text: > > 9.2.2. Account holders without existing IPv4 space > > To qualify for an initial allocation of IPv6 address space, an > organization must: > > 1. Be an LIR > 2. Not be an end site > 3. Plan, within two years, to provide IPv6 connectivity to other > organizations/end-users to which it will make assignments. > > The allocation size, in case an address block bigger than the default > one (as indicated in 9.2.1.) is requested, will be based on the number > of users, the extent of the organisation's infrastructure, the > hierarchical and geographical structuring of the organisation, the > segmentation of infrastructure for security and the planned longevity of > the allocation. > > Private networks (those not connected to the public Internet) may also > be eligible for an IPv6 address space allocation provided they meet > equivalent criteria to those listed above. > > Advantages of the proposal > -------------------------- > > Fulfilling the objective above indicated, so allowing a more realistic > alignment of the policy text with market reality under the IPv4 > exhaustion situation. > > Disadvantages of the proposal > ----------------------------- > Possible abuse of the policy, which may be done equally creating new > LIRs, and it is expected that the evaluation process of a request from > APNIC will avoid it. > > > Impact on resource holders > -------------------------- > None. > > > References > ---------- > Links to the RIPE and LACNIC texts on request. > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Sig-policy-chair mailing list > Sig-policy-chair@apnic.net > https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy-chair > > * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * > _______________________________________________ > sig-policy mailing list > sig-policy@lists.apnic.net > https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.consulintel.es The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
Hi Jordi,
Thank you for your response.
2017-09-09 12:40 GMT+08:00 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ jordi.palet@consulintel.es:
Hi all,
See my comments below in-line as [Jordi].
Regards, Jordi
-----Mensaje original----- De: sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net en nombre de Satoru Tsurumaki satoru.tsurumaki@g.softbank.co.jp Responder a: satoru.tsurumaki@g.softbank.co.jp Fecha: viernes, 8 de septiembre de 2017, 14:34 Para: SIG policy sig-policy@apnic.net Asunto: Re: [sig-policy] New proposal prop-121: Updating "InitialIPv6 allocation"
Dear Colleagues, I am Satoru Tsurumaki from Policy Working Group in Japan. I would like to share key feedback in our community for prop-121, based on a meeting we organised on 5th Sep to discuss these proposals. Many opposing comments were expressed on the proposal with reasons below. * Under the current criteria, networks with IPv4 can receive IPv6 easily. However, with adoption of this proposal, this consideration based on IPv4 network will be removed, and the policy could become more strict for some applications.[Jordi] I think is in the other way around. With the proposal, I’m removing the requirement for “at least 200 customers” (there may be ISPs that have much less number of customers than that) and “be an existing LIR with IPv4 allocations”. There is not more IPv4 space, is not realistic to have such requirement, furthermore, in the short term, I’m sure, there will be IPv6-only ISPs, so again not reason for asking them to have IPv4 allocations.
We support the motivation of the proposal. However, there were some who felt that this policy could make it more difficult as unintended consequence.
The biggest concern is that for those networks based on IPv4, you are able to receive an equivalent IPv6 space, based on the size of your IPv4 holding. If you remove this criteria, there is no assurance to be able to receive equivalent IPv6.
On this criteria, we can support if the proposal maintains evaluation based on current IPv4 holding and make it an OR condition for those who do not want to apply based on IPv4 holding.
* Would like to confirm how specifically APNIC secretariat will evaluate requests under this policy. The criteria becomes ambiguous with this proposal which would make it harder for applications to prepare for the evaluation.[Jordi] This has been running with the same text in RIPE region, and has not been considered as an issue by the staff, so I guess here we can take the advantage of that experience.
* Approach may not be the right one to achieve the objective of IPv6 promotion[Jordi] I think in the other way around, it facilitates the IPv6 promotion, as it doesn’t require to be a “big” ISP (200 customers) neither to have been an IPv4 one before.
* From the current IPv6 allocation criteria, it is unlikely to have many cases where criteria. d is being the barrier to receive IPv6 space.[Jordi] Not sure what is criteria d. ? If you mean criteria 4 as in https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/resources#Part-3:-IPv6-Policy (9.2.2. 4), I think I’ve responded to that already with my previous responses?
Best Regards, Satoru Tsurumaki Policy Working Group Japan Open Policy Forum 2017-08-09 15:19 GMT+09:00 chku <chku@twnic.net.tw>: > Dear SIG members > > The proposal "prop-121: Updating “Initial IPv6 allocation” policy" has > been sent to the Policy SIG for review. > > It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting at APNIC 44 which will > be held in Taichung, Taiwan on Wednesday and Thursday, 14 & 15 September > 2017. > > 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 > express your views on the proposal: > > - Do you support or oppose this proposal? > - Does this proposal solve a problem you are experiencing? If so, > tell the community about your situation. > - Do you see any disadvantages in 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? > > Information about this proposal is available at: > > http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-121 > > Regards > > Sumon, Ching-Heng, Bertrand > APNIC Policy SIG Chairs > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > prop-121-v001: Updating “Initial IPv6 allocation” policy > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Proposer: Jordi Palet Martinez > jordi.palet@consulintel.es > > Problem Statement > ----------------- > > The actual policy text (9.2.2. Account holders without existing IPv4 > space) is assuming that an LIR will have more than 200 customers over a > period of 2 years, or it is already an IPv4 LIR. > > However, it is a perfectly valid possibility to have small LIRs, which > may be never will have 200 customers, for example they may have a dozen > of big enterprise customers, or they may be a new LIR, not having any > IPv4 addresses (we all know the run-out problem) or may choose to use a > limited number of IPv4 addresses from their upstream providers, because > they don’t intend to provide IPv4 services. > > It is also possible that the LIR is planning for a longer term than just > 2 years, for example a government with a national network which may take > a longer period to deploy, connecting all kind of institutions at > different levels (ministries, schools, health centres, municipalities, > other public institutions, etc.). > > > Objective of policy change > -------------------------- > > To make sure that the policy is aligned with a wider set of possible > IPv6 deployment cases, including those indicated in the previous section > and facilitate the justification of the allocation/assignment size if a > bigger address block (versus the default one) is requested. > > > Situation in other regions > -------------------------- > This situation, concretely in the case of big initial IPv6 allocations > to governments, has already occurred in RIPE, and the policy was updated > to be able to make those allocations. In some cases, a few governments > got delayed their deployments several years because the lack of an > appropriate policy covering their case. > > > Proposed policy solution > ------------------------ > > Change some of the actual text as follows. > > Actual text: > > 9.2.2. Account holders without existing IPv4 space > > To qualify for an initial allocation of IPv6 address space, an > organization must: > > 1. Be an LIR > 2. Not be an end site > 3. Plan to provide IPv6 connectivity to organizations to which it > will make assignments. > 4. Meet one of the two following criteria: > > - Have a plan for making at least 200 assignments to other > organizations within two years, or > > - Be an existing LIR with IPv4 allocations from APNIC or an NIR, which > will make IPv6 assignments or sub-allocations to other organizations > and announce the allocation in the inter- domain routing system within > two years. > > Private networks (those not connected to the public Internet) may also > be eligible for an IPv6 address space allocation provided they meet > equivalent criteria to those listed above. > > > New text: > > 9.2.2. Account holders without existing IPv4 space > > To qualify for an initial allocation of IPv6 address space, an > organization must: > > 1. Be an LIR > 2. Not be an end site > 3. Plan, within two years, to provide IPv6 connectivity to other > organizations/end-users to which it will make assignments. > > The allocation size, in case an address block bigger than the default > one (as indicated in 9.2.1.) is requested, will be based on the number > of users, the extent of the organisation's infrastructure, the > hierarchical and geographical structuring of the organisation, the > segmentation of infrastructure for security and the planned longevity of > the allocation. > > Private networks (those not connected to the public Internet) may also > be eligible for an IPv6 address space allocation provided they meet > equivalent criteria to those listed above. > > Advantages of the proposal > -------------------------- > > Fulfilling the objective above indicated, so allowing a more realistic > alignment of the policy text with market reality under the IPv4 > exhaustion situation. > > Disadvantages of the proposal > ----------------------------- > Possible abuse of the policy, which may be done equally creating new > LIRs, and it is expected that the evaluation process of a request from > APNIC will avoid it. > > > Impact on resource holders > -------------------------- > None. > > > References > ---------- > Links to the RIPE and LACNIC texts on request. > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Sig-policy-chair mailing list > Sig-policy-chair@apnic.net > https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy-chair > > * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * > _______________________________________________ > sig-policy mailing list > sig-policy@lists.apnic.net > https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.consulintel.es The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
Hi Satoru,
To make it short. You said:
“We support the motivation of the proposal. However, there were some who felt that this policy could make it more difficult as unintended consequence.
The biggest concern is that for those networks based on IPv4, you are able to receive an equivalent IPv6 space, based on the size of your IPv4 holding. If you remove this criteria, there is no assurance to be able to receive equivalent IPv6.
On this criteria, we can support if the proposal maintains evaluation based on current IPv4 holding and make it an OR condition for those who do not want to apply based on IPv4 holding.”
My interpretation of my proposal, is that I’m not changing that. I only change the allocation size *in case* you request something bigger. But I’m happy to “tune” the text to make it clear if needed.
Regards, Jordi
-----Mensaje original----- De: Satoru Tsurumaki satoru.tsurumaki@g.softbank.co.jp Responder a: satoru.tsurumaki@g.softbank.co.jp Fecha: jueves, 14 de septiembre de 2017, 8:54 Para: jordi.palet@consulintel.es CC: SIG policy sig-policy@apnic.net Asunto: Re: [sig-policy] New proposal prop-121: Updating "InitialIPv6 allocation"
Hi Jordi,
Thank you for your response.
2017-09-09 12:40 GMT+08:00 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ jordi.palet@consulintel.es: > Hi all, > > See my comments below in-line as [Jordi]. > > Regards, > Jordi > > > -----Mensaje original----- > De: sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net en nombre de Satoru Tsurumaki satoru.tsurumaki@g.softbank.co.jp > Responder a: satoru.tsurumaki@g.softbank.co.jp > Fecha: viernes, 8 de septiembre de 2017, 14:34 > Para: SIG policy sig-policy@apnic.net > Asunto: Re: [sig-policy] New proposal prop-121: Updating "InitialIPv6 allocation" > > Dear Colleagues, > > > I am Satoru Tsurumaki from Policy Working Group in Japan. > > I would like to share key feedback in our community for prop-121, > based on a meeting we organised on 5th Sep to discuss these proposals. > > > Many opposing comments were expressed on the proposal with reasons below. > > * Under the current criteria, networks with IPv4 can receive IPv6 > easily. However, with adoption of this proposal, this consideration > based on IPv4 network will be removed, and the policy could become > more strict for some applications. > > [Jordi] I think is in the other way around. With the proposal, I’m removing the requirement for “at least 200 customers” (there may be ISPs that have much less number of customers than that) and “be an existing LIR with IPv4 allocations”. There is not more IPv4 space, is not realistic to have such requirement, furthermore, in the short term, I’m sure, there will be IPv6-only ISPs, so again not reason for asking them to have IPv4 allocations.
We support the motivation of the proposal. However, there were some who felt that this policy could make it more difficult as unintended consequence.
The biggest concern is that for those networks based on IPv4, you are able to receive an equivalent IPv6 space, based on the size of your IPv4 holding. If you remove this criteria, there is no assurance to be able to receive equivalent IPv6.
On this criteria, we can support if the proposal maintains evaluation based on current IPv4 holding and make it an OR condition for those who do not want to apply based on IPv4 holding.
> > * Would like to confirm how specifically APNIC secretariat will > evaluate requests under this policy. The criteria becomes ambiguous > with this proposal which would make it harder for applications to > prepare for the evaluation. > > [Jordi] This has been running with the same text in RIPE region, and has not been considered as an issue by the staff, so I guess here we can take the advantage of that experience. > > * Approach may not be the right one to achieve the objective of IPv6 promotion > > [Jordi] I think in the other way around, it facilitates the IPv6 promotion, as it doesn’t require to be a “big” ISP (200 customers) neither to have been an IPv4 one before. > > * From the current IPv6 allocation criteria, it is unlikely to have > many cases where criteria. d is being the barrier to receive IPv6 > space. > > [Jordi] Not sure what is criteria d. ? If you mean criteria 4 as in https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/resources#Part-3:-IPv6-Policy (9.2.2. 4), I think I’ve responded to that already with my previous responses? > > Best Regards, > > Satoru Tsurumaki > Policy Working Group > Japan Open Policy Forum > > 2017-08-09 15:19 GMT+09:00 chku chku@twnic.net.tw: > > Dear SIG members > > > > The proposal "prop-121: Updating “Initial IPv6 allocation” policy" has > > been sent to the Policy SIG for review. > > > > It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting at APNIC 44 which will > > be held in Taichung, Taiwan on Wednesday and Thursday, 14 & 15 September > > 2017. > > > > 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 > > express your views on the proposal: > > > > - Do you support or oppose this proposal? > > - Does this proposal solve a problem you are experiencing? If so, > > tell the community about your situation. > > - Do you see any disadvantages in 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? > > > > Information about this proposal is available at: > > > > http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-121 > > > > Regards > > > > Sumon, Ching-Heng, Bertrand > > APNIC Policy SIG Chairs > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > prop-121-v001: Updating “Initial IPv6 allocation” policy > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > Proposer: Jordi Palet Martinez > > jordi.palet@consulintel.es > > > > Problem Statement > > ----------------- > > > > The actual policy text (9.2.2. Account holders without existing IPv4 > > space) is assuming that an LIR will have more than 200 customers over a > > period of 2 years, or it is already an IPv4 LIR. > > > > However, it is a perfectly valid possibility to have small LIRs, which > > may be never will have 200 customers, for example they may have a dozen > > of big enterprise customers, or they may be a new LIR, not having any > > IPv4 addresses (we all know the run-out problem) or may choose to use a > > limited number of IPv4 addresses from their upstream providers, because > > they don’t intend to provide IPv4 services. > > > > It is also possible that the LIR is planning for a longer term than just > > 2 years, for example a government with a national network which may take > > a longer period to deploy, connecting all kind of institutions at > > different levels (ministries, schools, health centres, municipalities, > > other public institutions, etc.). > > > > > > Objective of policy change > > -------------------------- > > > > To make sure that the policy is aligned with a wider set of possible > > IPv6 deployment cases, including those indicated in the previous section > > and facilitate the justification of the allocation/assignment size if a > > bigger address block (versus the default one) is requested. > > > > > > Situation in other regions > > -------------------------- > > This situation, concretely in the case of big initial IPv6 allocations > > to governments, has already occurred in RIPE, and the policy was updated > > to be able to make those allocations. In some cases, a few governments > > got delayed their deployments several years because the lack of an > > appropriate policy covering their case. > > > > > > Proposed policy solution > > ------------------------ > > > > Change some of the actual text as follows. > > > > Actual text: > > > > 9.2.2. Account holders without existing IPv4 space > > > > To qualify for an initial allocation of IPv6 address space, an > > organization must: > > > > 1. Be an LIR > > 2. Not be an end site > > 3. Plan to provide IPv6 connectivity to organizations to which it > > will make assignments. > > 4. Meet one of the two following criteria: > > > > - Have a plan for making at least 200 assignments to other > > organizations within two years, or > > > > - Be an existing LIR with IPv4 allocations from APNIC or an NIR, which > > will make IPv6 assignments or sub-allocations to other organizations > > and announce the allocation in the inter- domain routing system within > > two years. > > > > Private networks (those not connected to the public Internet) may also > > be eligible for an IPv6 address space allocation provided they meet > > equivalent criteria to those listed above. > > > > > > New text: > > > > 9.2.2. Account holders without existing IPv4 space > > > > To qualify for an initial allocation of IPv6 address space, an > > organization must: > > > > 1. Be an LIR > > 2. Not be an end site > > 3. Plan, within two years, to provide IPv6 connectivity to other > > organizations/end-users to which it will make assignments. > > > > The allocation size, in case an address block bigger than the default > > one (as indicated in 9.2.1.) is requested, will be based on the number > > of users, the extent of the organisation's infrastructure, the > > hierarchical and geographical structuring of the organisation, the > > segmentation of infrastructure for security and the planned longevity of > > the allocation. > > > > Private networks (those not connected to the public Internet) may also > > be eligible for an IPv6 address space allocation provided they meet > > equivalent criteria to those listed above. > > > > Advantages of the proposal > > -------------------------- > > > > Fulfilling the objective above indicated, so allowing a more realistic > > alignment of the policy text with market reality under the IPv4 > > exhaustion situation. > > > > Disadvantages of the proposal > > ----------------------------- > > Possible abuse of the policy, which may be done equally creating new > > LIRs, and it is expected that the evaluation process of a request from > > APNIC will avoid it. > > > > > > Impact on resource holders > > -------------------------- > > None. > > > > > > References > > ---------- > > Links to the RIPE and LACNIC texts on request. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Sig-policy-chair mailing list > > Sig-policy-chair@apnic.net > > https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy-chair > > > > * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * > > _______________________________________________ > > sig-policy mailing list > > sig-policy@lists.apnic.net > > https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy > * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * > _______________________________________________ > sig-policy mailing list > sig-policy@lists.apnic.net > https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy > > > > ********************************************** > IPv4 is over > Are you ready for the new Internet ? > http://www.consulintel.es > The IPv6 Company > > This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it. > > > > * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * > _______________________________________________ > sig-policy mailing list > sig-policy@lists.apnic.net > https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.consulintel.es The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
Reading thru the policy again, just in case I’m missing anything.
If you look at 9.1, as I’m not changing that, it looks to me that the case for existing IPv4 holders, that need something bigger than /32, either using justification 1 or 2, but also if you see my proposal:
“The allocation size, in case an address block bigger than the default one (as indicated in 9.2.1.) is requested, will be based on the number of users, the extent of the organisation's infrastructure, the hierarchical and geographical structuring of the organisation, the segmentation of infrastructure for security and the planned longevity of the allocation.”
It means that all the criteria I’m setting there, will be valid to justify your needs.
I guest hostmasters can confirm if that’s their interpretation as well?
Regards, Jordi
-----Mensaje original----- De: sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net en nombre de JORDI PALET MARTINEZ jordi.palet@consulintel.es Responder a: jordi.palet@consulintel.es Fecha: jueves, 14 de septiembre de 2017, 9:00 Para: SIG policy sig-policy@apnic.net Asunto: Re: [sig-policy] New proposal prop-121: Updating "InitialIPv6 allocation"
Hi Satoru,
To make it short. You said:
“We support the motivation of the proposal. However, there were some who felt that this policy could make it more difficult as unintended consequence.
The biggest concern is that for those networks based on IPv4, you are able to receive an equivalent IPv6 space, based on the size of your IPv4 holding. If you remove this criteria, there is no assurance to be able to receive equivalent IPv6.
On this criteria, we can support if the proposal maintains evaluation based on current IPv4 holding and make it an OR condition for those who do not want to apply based on IPv4 holding.”
My interpretation of my proposal, is that I’m not changing that. I only change the allocation size *in case* you request something bigger. But I’m happy to “tune” the text to make it clear if needed.
Regards, Jordi
-----Mensaje original----- De: Satoru Tsurumaki satoru.tsurumaki@g.softbank.co.jp Responder a: satoru.tsurumaki@g.softbank.co.jp Fecha: jueves, 14 de septiembre de 2017, 8:54 Para: jordi.palet@consulintel.es CC: SIG policy sig-policy@apnic.net Asunto: Re: [sig-policy] New proposal prop-121: Updating "InitialIPv6 allocation"
Hi Jordi,
Thank you for your response.
2017-09-09 12:40 GMT+08:00 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ jordi.palet@consulintel.es: > Hi all, > > See my comments below in-line as [Jordi]. > > Regards, > Jordi > > > -----Mensaje original----- > De: sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net en nombre de Satoru Tsurumaki satoru.tsurumaki@g.softbank.co.jp > Responder a: satoru.tsurumaki@g.softbank.co.jp > Fecha: viernes, 8 de septiembre de 2017, 14:34 > Para: SIG policy sig-policy@apnic.net > Asunto: Re: [sig-policy] New proposal prop-121: Updating "InitialIPv6 allocation" > > Dear Colleagues, > > > I am Satoru Tsurumaki from Policy Working Group in Japan. > > I would like to share key feedback in our community for prop-121, > based on a meeting we organised on 5th Sep to discuss these proposals. > > > Many opposing comments were expressed on the proposal with reasons below. > > * Under the current criteria, networks with IPv4 can receive IPv6 > easily. However, with adoption of this proposal, this consideration > based on IPv4 network will be removed, and the policy could become > more strict for some applications. > > [Jordi] I think is in the other way around. With the proposal, I’m removing the requirement for “at least 200 customers” (there may be ISPs that have much less number of customers than that) and “be an existing LIR with IPv4 allocations”. There is not more IPv4 space, is not realistic to have such requirement, furthermore, in the short term, I’m sure, there will be IPv6-only ISPs, so again not reason for asking them to have IPv4 allocations.
We support the motivation of the proposal. However, there were some who felt that this policy could make it more difficult as unintended consequence.
The biggest concern is that for those networks based on IPv4, you are able to receive an equivalent IPv6 space, based on the size of your IPv4 holding. If you remove this criteria, there is no assurance to be able to receive equivalent IPv6.
On this criteria, we can support if the proposal maintains evaluation based on current IPv4 holding and make it an OR condition for those who do not want to apply based on IPv4 holding.
> > * Would like to confirm how specifically APNIC secretariat will > evaluate requests under this policy. The criteria becomes ambiguous > with this proposal which would make it harder for applications to > prepare for the evaluation. > > [Jordi] This has been running with the same text in RIPE region, and has not been considered as an issue by the staff, so I guess here we can take the advantage of that experience. > > * Approach may not be the right one to achieve the objective of IPv6 promotion > > [Jordi] I think in the other way around, it facilitates the IPv6 promotion, as it doesn’t require to be a “big” ISP (200 customers) neither to have been an IPv4 one before. > > * From the current IPv6 allocation criteria, it is unlikely to have > many cases where criteria. d is being the barrier to receive IPv6 > space. > > [Jordi] Not sure what is criteria d. ? If you mean criteria 4 as in https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/resources#Part-3:-IPv6-Policy (9.2.2. 4), I think I’ve responded to that already with my previous responses? > > Best Regards, > > Satoru Tsurumaki > Policy Working Group > Japan Open Policy Forum > > 2017-08-09 15:19 GMT+09:00 chku chku@twnic.net.tw: > > Dear SIG members > > > > The proposal "prop-121: Updating “Initial IPv6 allocation” policy" has > > been sent to the Policy SIG for review. > > > > It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting at APNIC 44 which will > > be held in Taichung, Taiwan on Wednesday and Thursday, 14 & 15 September > > 2017. > > > > 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 > > express your views on the proposal: > > > > - Do you support or oppose this proposal? > > - Does this proposal solve a problem you are experiencing? If so, > > tell the community about your situation. > > - Do you see any disadvantages in 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? > > > > Information about this proposal is available at: > > > > http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-121 > > > > Regards > > > > Sumon, Ching-Heng, Bertrand > > APNIC Policy SIG Chairs > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > prop-121-v001: Updating “Initial IPv6 allocation” policy > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > Proposer: Jordi Palet Martinez > > jordi.palet@consulintel.es > > > > Problem Statement > > ----------------- > > > > The actual policy text (9.2.2. Account holders without existing IPv4 > > space) is assuming that an LIR will have more than 200 customers over a > > period of 2 years, or it is already an IPv4 LIR. > > > > However, it is a perfectly valid possibility to have small LIRs, which > > may be never will have 200 customers, for example they may have a dozen > > of big enterprise customers, or they may be a new LIR, not having any > > IPv4 addresses (we all know the run-out problem) or may choose to use a > > limited number of IPv4 addresses from their upstream providers, because > > they don’t intend to provide IPv4 services. > > > > It is also possible that the LIR is planning for a longer term than just > > 2 years, for example a government with a national network which may take > > a longer period to deploy, connecting all kind of institutions at > > different levels (ministries, schools, health centres, municipalities, > > other public institutions, etc.). > > > > > > Objective of policy change > > -------------------------- > > > > To make sure that the policy is aligned with a wider set of possible > > IPv6 deployment cases, including those indicated in the previous section > > and facilitate the justification of the allocation/assignment size if a > > bigger address block (versus the default one) is requested. > > > > > > Situation in other regions > > -------------------------- > > This situation, concretely in the case of big initial IPv6 allocations > > to governments, has already occurred in RIPE, and the policy was updated > > to be able to make those allocations. In some cases, a few governments > > got delayed their deployments several years because the lack of an > > appropriate policy covering their case. > > > > > > Proposed policy solution > > ------------------------ > > > > Change some of the actual text as follows. > > > > Actual text: > > > > 9.2.2. Account holders without existing IPv4 space > > > > To qualify for an initial allocation of IPv6 address space, an > > organization must: > > > > 1. Be an LIR > > 2. Not be an end site > > 3. Plan to provide IPv6 connectivity to organizations to which it > > will make assignments. > > 4. Meet one of the two following criteria: > > > > - Have a plan for making at least 200 assignments to other > > organizations within two years, or > > > > - Be an existing LIR with IPv4 allocations from APNIC or an NIR, which > > will make IPv6 assignments or sub-allocations to other organizations > > and announce the allocation in the inter- domain routing system within > > two years. > > > > Private networks (those not connected to the public Internet) may also > > be eligible for an IPv6 address space allocation provided they meet > > equivalent criteria to those listed above. > > > > > > New text: > > > > 9.2.2. Account holders without existing IPv4 space > > > > To qualify for an initial allocation of IPv6 address space, an > > organization must: > > > > 1. Be an LIR > > 2. Not be an end site > > 3. Plan, within two years, to provide IPv6 connectivity to other > > organizations/end-users to which it will make assignments. > > > > The allocation size, in case an address block bigger than the default > > one (as indicated in 9.2.1.) is requested, will be based on the number > > of users, the extent of the organisation's infrastructure, the > > hierarchical and geographical structuring of the organisation, the > > segmentation of infrastructure for security and the planned longevity of > > the allocation. > > > > Private networks (those not connected to the public Internet) may also > > be eligible for an IPv6 address space allocation provided they meet > > equivalent criteria to those listed above. > > > > Advantages of the proposal > > -------------------------- > > > > Fulfilling the objective above indicated, so allowing a more realistic > > alignment of the policy text with market reality under the IPv4 > > exhaustion situation. > > > > Disadvantages of the proposal > > ----------------------------- > > Possible abuse of the policy, which may be done equally creating new > > LIRs, and it is expected that the evaluation process of a request from > > APNIC will avoid it. > > > > > > Impact on resource holders > > -------------------------- > > None. > > > > > > References > > ---------- > > Links to the RIPE and LACNIC texts on request. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Sig-policy-chair mailing list > > Sig-policy-chair@apnic.net > > https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy-chair > > > > * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * > > _______________________________________________ > > sig-policy mailing list > > sig-policy@lists.apnic.net > > https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy > * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * > _______________________________________________ > sig-policy mailing list > sig-policy@lists.apnic.net > https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy > > > > ********************************************** > IPv4 is over > Are you ready for the new Internet ? > http://www.consulintel.es > The IPv6 Company > > This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it. > > > > * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * > _______________________________________________ > sig-policy mailing list > sig-policy@lists.apnic.net > https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.consulintel.es The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.consulintel.es The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.consulintel.es The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
Hi Jordi,
Thank you for clarification. I understand that this policy is for those who are not IPv4 account holder.
Thanks,
2017-09-14 8:59 GMT+08:00 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ jordi.palet@consulintel.es:
Hi Satoru,
To make it short. You said:
“We support the motivation of the proposal. However, there were some who felt that this policy could make it more difficult as unintended consequence.
The biggest concern is that for those networks based on IPv4, you are able to receive an equivalent IPv6 space, based on the size of your IPv4 holding. If you remove this criteria, there is no assurance to be able to receive equivalent IPv6.
On this criteria, we can support if the proposal maintains evaluation based on current IPv4 holding and make it an OR condition for those who do not want to apply based on IPv4 holding.”
My interpretation of my proposal, is that I’m not changing that. I only change the allocation size *in case* you request something bigger. But I’m happy to “tune” the text to make it clear if needed.
Regards, Jordi
-----Mensaje original----- De: Satoru Tsurumaki satoru.tsurumaki@g.softbank.co.jp Responder a: satoru.tsurumaki@g.softbank.co.jp Fecha: jueves, 14 de septiembre de 2017, 8:54 Para: jordi.palet@consulintel.es CC: SIG policy sig-policy@apnic.net Asunto: Re: [sig-policy] New proposal prop-121: Updating "InitialIPv6 allocation"
Hi Jordi, Thank you for your response. 2017-09-09 12:40 GMT+08:00 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet@consulintel.es>: > Hi all, > > See my comments below in-line as [Jordi]. > > Regards, > Jordi > > > -----Mensaje original----- > De: <sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net> en nombre de Satoru Tsurumaki <satoru.tsurumaki@g.softbank.co.jp> > Responder a: <satoru.tsurumaki@g.softbank.co.jp> > Fecha: viernes, 8 de septiembre de 2017, 14:34 > Para: SIG policy <sig-policy@apnic.net> > Asunto: Re: [sig-policy] New proposal prop-121: Updating "InitialIPv6 allocation" > > Dear Colleagues, > > > I am Satoru Tsurumaki from Policy Working Group in Japan. > > I would like to share key feedback in our community for prop-121, > based on a meeting we organised on 5th Sep to discuss these proposals. > > > Many opposing comments were expressed on the proposal with reasons below. > > * Under the current criteria, networks with IPv4 can receive IPv6 > easily. However, with adoption of this proposal, this consideration > based on IPv4 network will be removed, and the policy could become > more strict for some applications. > > [Jordi] I think is in the other way around. With the proposal, I’m removing the requirement for “at least 200 customers” (there may be ISPs that have much less number of customers than that) and “be an existing LIR with IPv4 allocations”. There is not more IPv4 space, is not realistic to have such requirement, furthermore, in the short term, I’m sure, there will be IPv6-only ISPs, so again not reason for asking them to have IPv4 allocations. We support the motivation of the proposal. However, there were some who felt that this policy could make it more difficult as unintended consequence. The biggest concern is that for those networks based on IPv4, you are able to receive an equivalent IPv6 space, based on the size of your IPv4 holding. If you remove this criteria, there is no assurance to be able to receive equivalent IPv6. On this criteria, we can support if the proposal maintains evaluation based on current IPv4 holding and make it an OR condition for those who do not want to apply based on IPv4 holding. > > * Would like to confirm how specifically APNIC secretariat will > evaluate requests under this policy. The criteria becomes ambiguous > with this proposal which would make it harder for applications to > prepare for the evaluation. > > [Jordi] This has been running with the same text in RIPE region, and has not been considered as an issue by the staff, so I guess here we can take the advantage of that experience. > > * Approach may not be the right one to achieve the objective of IPv6 promotion > > [Jordi] I think in the other way around, it facilitates the IPv6 promotion, as it doesn’t require to be a “big” ISP (200 customers) neither to have been an IPv4 one before. > > * From the current IPv6 allocation criteria, it is unlikely to have > many cases where criteria. d is being the barrier to receive IPv6 > space. > > [Jordi] Not sure what is criteria d. ? If you mean criteria 4 as in https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/resources#Part-3:-IPv6-Policy (9.2.2. 4), I think I’ve responded to that already with my previous responses? > > Best Regards, > > Satoru Tsurumaki > Policy Working Group > Japan Open Policy Forum > > 2017-08-09 15:19 GMT+09:00 chku <chku@twnic.net.tw>: > > Dear SIG members > > > > The proposal "prop-121: Updating “Initial IPv6 allocation” policy" has > > been sent to the Policy SIG for review. > > > > It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting at APNIC 44 which will > > be held in Taichung, Taiwan on Wednesday and Thursday, 14 & 15 September > > 2017. > > > > 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 > > express your views on the proposal: > > > > - Do you support or oppose this proposal? > > - Does this proposal solve a problem you are experiencing? If so, > > tell the community about your situation. > > - Do you see any disadvantages in 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? > > > > Information about this proposal is available at: > > > > http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-121 > > > > Regards > > > > Sumon, Ching-Heng, Bertrand > > APNIC Policy SIG Chairs > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > prop-121-v001: Updating “Initial IPv6 allocation” policy > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > Proposer: Jordi Palet Martinez > > jordi.palet@consulintel.es > > > > Problem Statement > > ----------------- > > > > The actual policy text (9.2.2. Account holders without existing IPv4 > > space) is assuming that an LIR will have more than 200 customers over a > > period of 2 years, or it is already an IPv4 LIR. > > > > However, it is a perfectly valid possibility to have small LIRs, which > > may be never will have 200 customers, for example they may have a dozen > > of big enterprise customers, or they may be a new LIR, not having any > > IPv4 addresses (we all know the run-out problem) or may choose to use a > > limited number of IPv4 addresses from their upstream providers, because > > they don’t intend to provide IPv4 services. > > > > It is also possible that the LIR is planning for a longer term than just > > 2 years, for example a government with a national network which may take > > a longer period to deploy, connecting all kind of institutions at > > different levels (ministries, schools, health centres, municipalities, > > other public institutions, etc.). > > > > > > Objective of policy change > > -------------------------- > > > > To make sure that the policy is aligned with a wider set of possible > > IPv6 deployment cases, including those indicated in the previous section > > and facilitate the justification of the allocation/assignment size if a > > bigger address block (versus the default one) is requested. > > > > > > Situation in other regions > > -------------------------- > > This situation, concretely in the case of big initial IPv6 allocations > > to governments, has already occurred in RIPE, and the policy was updated > > to be able to make those allocations. In some cases, a few governments > > got delayed their deployments several years because the lack of an > > appropriate policy covering their case. > > > > > > Proposed policy solution > > ------------------------ > > > > Change some of the actual text as follows. > > > > Actual text: > > > > 9.2.2. Account holders without existing IPv4 space > > > > To qualify for an initial allocation of IPv6 address space, an > > organization must: > > > > 1. Be an LIR > > 2. Not be an end site > > 3. Plan to provide IPv6 connectivity to organizations to which it > > will make assignments. > > 4. Meet one of the two following criteria: > > > > - Have a plan for making at least 200 assignments to other > > organizations within two years, or > > > > - Be an existing LIR with IPv4 allocations from APNIC or an NIR, which > > will make IPv6 assignments or sub-allocations to other organizations > > and announce the allocation in the inter- domain routing system within > > two years. > > > > Private networks (those not connected to the public Internet) may also > > be eligible for an IPv6 address space allocation provided they meet > > equivalent criteria to those listed above. > > > > > > New text: > > > > 9.2.2. Account holders without existing IPv4 space > > > > To qualify for an initial allocation of IPv6 address space, an > > organization must: > > > > 1. Be an LIR > > 2. Not be an end site > > 3. Plan, within two years, to provide IPv6 connectivity to other > > organizations/end-users to which it will make assignments. > > > > The allocation size, in case an address block bigger than the default > > one (as indicated in 9.2.1.) is requested, will be based on the number > > of users, the extent of the organisation's infrastructure, the > > hierarchical and geographical structuring of the organisation, the > > segmentation of infrastructure for security and the planned longevity of > > the allocation. > > > > Private networks (those not connected to the public Internet) may also > > be eligible for an IPv6 address space allocation provided they meet > > equivalent criteria to those listed above. > > > > Advantages of the proposal > > -------------------------- > > > > Fulfilling the objective above indicated, so allowing a more realistic > > alignment of the policy text with market reality under the IPv4 > > exhaustion situation. > > > > Disadvantages of the proposal > > ----------------------------- > > Possible abuse of the policy, which may be done equally creating new > > LIRs, and it is expected that the evaluation process of a request from > > APNIC will avoid it. > > > > > > Impact on resource holders > > -------------------------- > > None. > > > > > > References > > ---------- > > Links to the RIPE and LACNIC texts on request. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Sig-policy-chair mailing list > > Sig-policy-chair@apnic.net > > https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy-chair > > > > * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * > > _______________________________________________ > > sig-policy mailing list > > sig-policy@lists.apnic.net > > https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy > * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * > _______________________________________________ > sig-policy mailing list > sig-policy@lists.apnic.net > https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy > > > > ********************************************** > IPv4 is over > Are you ready for the new Internet ? > http://www.consulintel.es > The IPv6 Company > > This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it. > > > > * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * > _______________________________________________ > sig-policy mailing list > sig-policy@lists.apnic.net > https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.consulintel.es The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
Dear Jordi,
We support these proposals(prop-121 and 122) in general but we have one comment.
Now, when hostmaster evaluate the request bigger than the minimun allocation size, they detemin the allocated size based on the HD-Ratio. HD-Ratio is clearly written in the policy document. In the case of your policy proposal, it seems that it is not clear and it is difficult for hostmaster to objectively evaluate the allocation size.
Regards, Hiroki
--- Hiroki Kawabata(kawabata@nic.ad.jp) Hostmaster, IP Address Department Japan Network Information Center(JPNIC)
Subject: [sig-policy] New proposal prop-121: Updating "InitialIPv6 allocation" From: chku chku@twnic.net.tw Date: Wed Aug 09 2017 15:19:00 GMT+0900
Dear SIG members
The proposal "prop-121: Updating “Initial IPv6 allocation” policy" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.
It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting at APNIC 44 which will be held in Taichung, Taiwan on Wednesday and Thursday, 14 & 15 September 2017.
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 express your views on the proposal:
- Do you support or oppose this proposal?
- Does this proposal solve a problem you are experiencing? If so, tell the community about your situation.
- Do you see any disadvantages in 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?
Information about this proposal is available at:
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-121Regards
Sumon, Ching-Heng, Bertrand APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
prop-121-v001: Updating “Initial IPv6 allocation” policy
Proposer: Jordi Palet Martinez jordi.palet@consulintel.es
Problem Statement
The actual policy text (9.2.2. Account holders without existing IPv4 space) is assuming that an LIR will have more than 200 customers over a period of 2 years, or it is already an IPv4 LIR.
However, it is a perfectly valid possibility to have small LIRs, which may be never will have 200 customers, for example they may have a dozen of big enterprise customers, or they may be a new LIR, not having any IPv4 addresses (we all know the run-out problem) or may choose to use a limited number of IPv4 addresses from their upstream providers, because they don’t intend to provide IPv4 services.
It is also possible that the LIR is planning for a longer term than just 2 years, for example a government with a national network which may take a longer period to deploy, connecting all kind of institutions at different levels (ministries, schools, health centres, municipalities, other public institutions, etc.).
Objective of policy change
To make sure that the policy is aligned with a wider set of possible IPv6 deployment cases, including those indicated in the previous section and facilitate the justification of the allocation/assignment size if a bigger address block (versus the default one) is requested.
Situation in other regions
This situation, concretely in the case of big initial IPv6 allocations to governments, has already occurred in RIPE, and the policy was updated to be able to make those allocations. In some cases, a few governments got delayed their deployments several years because the lack of an appropriate policy covering their case.
Proposed policy solution
Change some of the actual text as follows.
Actual text:
9.2.2. Account holders without existing IPv4 space
To qualify for an initial allocation of IPv6 address space, an organization must:
- Be an LIR
- Not be an end site
- Plan to provide IPv6 connectivity to organizations to which it will make assignments.
- Meet one of the two following criteria:
Have a plan for making at least 200 assignments to other organizations within two years, or
Be an existing LIR with IPv4 allocations from APNIC or an NIR, which
will make IPv6 assignments or sub-allocations to other organizations and announce the allocation in the inter- domain routing system within two years.
Private networks (those not connected to the public Internet) may also be eligible for an IPv6 address space allocation provided they meet equivalent criteria to those listed above.
New text:
9.2.2. Account holders without existing IPv4 space
To qualify for an initial allocation of IPv6 address space, an organization must:
- Be an LIR
- Not be an end site
- Plan, within two years, to provide IPv6 connectivity to other organizations/end-users to which it will make assignments.
The allocation size, in case an address block bigger than the default one (as indicated in 9.2.1.) is requested, will be based on the number of users, the extent of the organisation's infrastructure, the hierarchical and geographical structuring of the organisation, the segmentation of infrastructure for security and the planned longevity of the allocation.
Private networks (those not connected to the public Internet) may also be eligible for an IPv6 address space allocation provided they meet equivalent criteria to those listed above.
Advantages of the proposal
Fulfilling the objective above indicated, so allowing a more realistic alignment of the policy text with market reality under the IPv4 exhaustion situation.
Disadvantages of the proposal
Possible abuse of the policy, which may be done equally creating new LIRs, and it is expected that the evaluation process of a request from APNIC will avoid it.
Impact on resource holders
None.
References
Links to the RIPE and LACNIC texts on request.
Sig-policy-chair mailing list Sig-policy-chair@apnic.net https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy-chair
sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
Hi Hiroki,
I just read again all the text of the actual policy, just to make sure I didn’t forget anything.
Unless I’m missing something, according to that, the HD-ratio is only checked for subsequent allocations, so it has no effect on the initial IPv6 allocations.
Regards, Jordi
-----Mensaje original----- De: sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net en nombre de Hiroki Kawabata kawabata@nic.ad.jp Responder a: kawabata@nic.ad.jp Fecha: domingo, 10 de septiembre de 2017, 16:23 Para: sig-policy sig-policy@apnic.net Asunto: Re: [sig-policy] New proposal prop-121: Updating "InitialIPv6 allocation"
Dear Jordi,
We support these proposals(prop-121 and 122) in general but we have one comment.
Now, when hostmaster evaluate the request bigger than the minimun allocation size, they detemin the allocated size based on the HD-Ratio. HD-Ratio is clearly written in the policy document. In the case of your policy proposal, it seems that it is not clear and it is difficult for hostmaster to objectively evaluate the allocation size.
Regards, Hiroki
--- Hiroki Kawabata(kawabata@nic.ad.jp) Hostmaster, IP Address Department Japan Network Information Center(JPNIC)
Subject: [sig-policy] New proposal prop-121: Updating "InitialIPv6 allocation" From: chku chku@twnic.net.tw Date: Wed Aug 09 2017 15:19:00 GMT+0900
> Dear SIG members > > The proposal "prop-121: Updating “Initial IPv6 allocation” policy" has > been sent to the Policy SIG for review. > > It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting at APNIC 44 which will > be held in Taichung, Taiwan on Wednesday and Thursday, 14 & 15 September > 2017. > > 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 > express your views on the proposal: > > - Do you support or oppose this proposal? > - Does this proposal solve a problem you are experiencing? If so, > tell the community about your situation. > - Do you see any disadvantages in 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? > > Information about this proposal is available at: > > http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-121 > > Regards > > Sumon, Ching-Heng, Bertrand > APNIC Policy SIG Chairs > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > prop-121-v001: Updating “Initial IPv6 allocation” policy > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Proposer: Jordi Palet Martinez > jordi.palet@consulintel.es > > Problem Statement > ----------------- > > The actual policy text (9.2.2. Account holders without existing IPv4 > space) is assuming that an LIR will have more than 200 customers over a > period of 2 years, or it is already an IPv4 LIR. > > However, it is a perfectly valid possibility to have small LIRs, which > may be never will have 200 customers, for example they may have a dozen > of big enterprise customers, or they may be a new LIR, not having any > IPv4 addresses (we all know the run-out problem) or may choose to use a > limited number of IPv4 addresses from their upstream providers, because > they don’t intend to provide IPv4 services. > > It is also possible that the LIR is planning for a longer term than just > 2 years, for example a government with a national network which may take > a longer period to deploy, connecting all kind of institutions at > different levels (ministries, schools, health centres, municipalities, > other public institutions, etc.). > > > Objective of policy change > -------------------------- > > To make sure that the policy is aligned with a wider set of possible > IPv6 deployment cases, including those indicated in the previous section > and facilitate the justification of the allocation/assignment size if a > bigger address block (versus the default one) is requested. > > > Situation in other regions > -------------------------- > This situation, concretely in the case of big initial IPv6 allocations > to governments, has already occurred in RIPE, and the policy was updated > to be able to make those allocations. In some cases, a few governments > got delayed their deployments several years because the lack of an > appropriate policy covering their case. > > > Proposed policy solution > ------------------------ > > Change some of the actual text as follows. > > Actual text: > > 9.2.2. Account holders without existing IPv4 space > > To qualify for an initial allocation of IPv6 address space, an > organization must: > > 1. Be an LIR > 2. Not be an end site > 3. Plan to provide IPv6 connectivity to organizations to which it > will make assignments. > 4. Meet one of the two following criteria: > > - Have a plan for making at least 200 assignments to other > organizations within two years, or > > - Be an existing LIR with IPv4 allocations from APNIC or an NIR, which > will make IPv6 assignments or sub-allocations to other organizations > and announce the allocation in the inter- domain routing system within > two years. > > Private networks (those not connected to the public Internet) may also > be eligible for an IPv6 address space allocation provided they meet > equivalent criteria to those listed above. > > > New text: > > 9.2.2. Account holders without existing IPv4 space > > To qualify for an initial allocation of IPv6 address space, an > organization must: > > 1. Be an LIR > 2. Not be an end site > 3. Plan, within two years, to provide IPv6 connectivity to other > organizations/end-users to which it will make assignments. > > The allocation size, in case an address block bigger than the default > one (as indicated in 9.2.1.) is requested, will be based on the number > of users, the extent of the organisation's infrastructure, the > hierarchical and geographical structuring of the organisation, the > segmentation of infrastructure for security and the planned longevity of > the allocation. > > Private networks (those not connected to the public Internet) may also > be eligible for an IPv6 address space allocation provided they meet > equivalent criteria to those listed above. > > Advantages of the proposal > -------------------------- > > Fulfilling the objective above indicated, so allowing a more realistic > alignment of the policy text with market reality under the IPv4 > exhaustion situation. > > Disadvantages of the proposal > ----------------------------- > Possible abuse of the policy, which may be done equally creating new > LIRs, and it is expected that the evaluation process of a request from > APNIC will avoid it. > > > Impact on resource holders > -------------------------- > None. > > > References > ---------- > Links to the RIPE and LACNIC texts on request. > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Sig-policy-chair mailing list > Sig-policy-chair@apnic.net > https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy-chair > > > > * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * > _______________________________________________ > sig-policy mailing list > sig-policy@lists.apnic.net > https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy > * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.consulintel.es The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
Activity Summary
- 2211 days inactive
- 2211 days old
- sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
- 4 participants
- 8 comments