[sig-policy][GLOBAL-V6]IPv6 Allocation Policy (fwd)
The message below concerns renewed discussions on the global IPv6 policy
mailing list at <global-v6 at apnic dot net>.
Anyone on the Address Policy or the IPv6 (technical) SIGs with an
interest in globally co-ordinated IPv6 policy is invited to subscribe
to this list and participate in the discussions.
kind regards,
Anne
APNIC Secretariat
____________________________________________________________________
Asia Pacific Network Information Centre phone: +61 7 3858 3100
http://www.apnic.net fax: +61 7 3858 3199
_____________________________________________________________________
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 22:31:06 -0400
From: Thomas Narten <narten at us dot ibm dot com>
To: global-v6 at lists dot apnic dot net
Subject: [GLOBAL-V6]IPv6 Allocation Policy
The IPv6 Allocation policy in use by the RIRs was finalized about a
year ago and went into effect in APNIC, ARIN, and RIPE in Summer,
2002. (E.g., see
http://www.apnic.net/docs/policy/ipv6-address-policy.html).
Over the last few months, there have been discussions in at least RIPE
and ARIN about modifying and/or clarifying and/or updating this
policy. At ARIN the topic was discussed at the April meeting in
Memphis. See http://www.arin.net/library/minutes/ARIN_XI/ppm.html for
more details.
After discussion, the specific proposal (Policy Proposal 2003-4) was
not accepted within ARIN, but there was agreement that the community
should take a look at how well the current policy is working and to
consider making clarifications and other changes to the document. At
the same time, there was a strong desire to see any changes discussed
and coordinated among the RIRs first, and on this mailing list in
particular. It seems that although there may be support for some of
the underlying issues that prompted the proposal within ARIN, there
wasn't support for the specific remedy proposed.
So, I'd like to ask the community here if they are aware of any issues
with the current policy. Morever, I think it would be especially
helpful to focus on describing (and getting agreement on) any
_problems_ before spending a lot of time on specific solution
proposals, since it's hard to get agreement on solutions if people are
sure what problem the solution is supposed to solve.
>From the ARIN discussion, at least the following were raised as
issues:
>From the policy:
> d) have a plan for making at least 200 /48 assignments to other
> organizations within two years.
There are some who feel that this bar is too high. In particular, the
number 200 is unrealistic, and some ISPs don't even bother to apply
because they don't feel like they meet this criteria.
Another related point that was raised concerns what happens when two
years are up and 200 customers have not been attained. There is a fear
at that point the RIRs will repossess the allocation. This fear serves
as a disincentive to apply for space in the first place.
I'm sure there are other issues that people might have. If so, please
bring them up!
I think it would also be useful to get feedback from those who have
tried to get allocations (but were turned down) as well as from those
who succesfully obtained allocations. How well is the current policy
working? Is there a need for any changes? Are there any operational
concerns with it, now that we have some limited experience with it?
Thomas
_______________________________________________
global-v6 mailing list
global-v6 at lists dot apnic dot net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/global-v6