Orbit

Sent from my iPad

On Aug 24, 2011, at 23:56, "Terence Zhang YH" zhangyinghao@cnnic.cn wrote:

(NO link to co-chair's opinion)

Hi Owen,

We have intensive interest in prop-098, generally speaking, we support the idea of more generous IPv6 allocations policy, and nibble boundary allocation etc.

We have a few questions about the proposal:

1. About Provider Allocation Unit:

It is defined as the smallest reassignment unit used by the provider.

Q1: Is the size of the PAU defined by the provider? Do they need to justify the size?

Yes. By choosing the smallest assignment unit they give to a customer, they set the size of their PAU. So, if they give a /48 to all customers, then, their PAU is /48. If they give /60s to some customers, then their PAU is /60, etc.

Any PAU up to /48 may be chosen by the provider without additional justification. (Or at least that is my intent in writing the policy).

2. About End site:

It is defined as a single structure or service delivery address

Q2: When it comes to mobile IP services, Is the 'end site' applied to a PDA or Cell phone devices, a personal area network (PAN), an Access Point, or a POP?

I believe end-site in that case would apply to the device where the carrier's responsibility ends, for example, the cell phone, PDA, or USB-modem. All devices served by a single mobile hot-spot, for example, would be considered a single end-site.

I confess I didn't thoroughly think through mobile when writing the policy, but, I believe that the above represents the most logical application of the policy as written to mobile and that would certainly be the intent if I were to write clarifying language to address the question.

3. Section 4.2: ......5 years of projected customer utilization based on assigning each customer end-site one provider allocation unit without exceeding a 75% utilization.

Q3: Does this assume each customer end-site will be allocated one same size PAU?

It does not assume that the ISP necessarily will do so, but, it does measure anticipated utilization based on the assumption that the ISP will do so. An ISP will have a single PAU size which will be used to measure all of their utilization. It will be their smallest assignment unit. So, an ISP which gives /60s to some customers and /48s to others will have to count those /48s as multiple /60s. They will have to justify the number of /60s they give to sites that receive /48s. If they give /48s to all end-sites, then, they will not need to justify anything until an end-site receives a second /48.

Does that answer your question?

4. Section 5.1 subsequent allocation criteria:

    - 75% or more utilization of their total address space, OR
    - One or more facilities which have reached a 90% utilization......
      there are no available blocks of sufficient size in the providers current
      allocation(s) to expand those facilities.
   
   

Q4: How to justify 'there are no available blocks of sufficient size', specifically when the LIR has sparsely assigned 160 * /40 from a /32, now one of the /40 site becomes full, and no more contiguous /40 left, will this be considered meet the criteria.

I believe that the allocation of a second non-contiguous /40 to that serving site would be expected in that case. If you have utilized 75% of your /40s (192 /40s assigned) and you fill 90% of one of them, then I believe you would qualify for an additional block.

I agree this is an area where clarification could be useful in the policy. Perhaps we can gather community feedback on the desired outcome in Busan and incorporate that into a clarification for last call? I confess I am not 100% well versed in the APNIC policy development process.

5. Section 2.4. The HD ratio ......Using nibble-boundaries and rounding up actually yields similar

results with simpler math.

Q5: How to understand 'nibble-boundaries round up' will have the similiar results with HD? With a consistent 75% usage and unpredictable 1-8 times rounding up, my humble feeling is the utilization is unpredictable, but the HD-ratio requirement is predictable.

Prefix HD require Utlization:

/32 36.9% /28 31.2% /24 26.4% /20 22.4%

In my premature estimation, the 75% usage plus round up maybe more relax than HD requirement in small network, but it maybe more restricted than HD in large network.

Yes, it can be (slightly) more restrictive in a large network. It is (significantly) more liberal in some small network corner cases.

Q6: Does this proposal remove HD-ratio criteria completely?

Yes.

Owen