Comments inline... At 14:11 04/08/2004 +0900, Tomohiro -INSTALLER- wrote:
If you want to increase the minimum allocation size, this above point completely contradicts the solution to your problem statement, doesn't it?Summary of the current problem: In the past, many of the organizations had requested for the minimum allocation size(/32) as an initial allocation due to the following reasons: + Based on the idea of the "slow start" in IPv4 policy, many organizations believed it would be difficult to justify all of their address requirements at an initial allocation.
Ok, how is it hard to work out address space needs? *All* organisations I have worked with have simply mapped IPv6 needs onto IPv4 customers to estimate their requirements. If the true aim of IPv6 is to replace IPv4, then this is the only logical step anyone can take. So if you have 8000 IPv4 customers, each will get a /48 should they take on an IPv6 service; and you apply for a /35 to cover existing expectations. If you have 60000 customers you apply for a /32. If you have 250000 customers you apply for a /30. Etc. So what's the problem? Where is the difficulty? Do ISPs not know how many customers they have?+ It was difficult to estimate their needs as IPv6 network was not commercially developed. Many organizations requested for address space for a test service in order to kick off the commercial service, not for the commercial service itself.
I believe they received an upgrade to a /32 if they asked for it. If you look in the various RIR databases, you'll see that not every ISP has asked for this upgrade.+ `PROVISIONAL IPv6 ASSIGNMENT AND ALLOCATION POLICY DOCUMENT' specified the initial allocation size as /35. LIRs which received allocations under this policy were only allowed an upgrade of their allocations to a /32.
In recent days, most of the ISPs learned that /32 space is too small for the real scale service deployment if they cover their existing IPv4 users.
So, apply for more. What's the problem?
What does "default address space" mean? Is this a /32? /32 allows for 256k /48 assignments - this is a *huge* network for an initial rollout. If the initial roll-out is going to be bigger, then isn't there a well established APNIC process which allows this?Organizations currently requesting for initial allocations can simply request for a larger space as the RIRs actively emphasize to their communities that they are able to request for allocations greater than /32, which is already a common practice. However, ISPs with the default address space need to design the IPv6 service network within the small space untill they clear the subsequent allocation requirement (HD-Ratio) for more address space. This makes the real IPv6 service deployment difficult, especially for large ISPs.
This sounds more like a misreading or misunderstanding of existing APNIC policy, rather than anything approximately relevant to how IPv6 addresses are requested from and allocated by APNIC. IMHO.Details of your proposal: Existing IPv6 initial allocation address holders should be able to expand their address space without satisfying subsequent allocation criteria if they are able to demonstrate their concrete plan. The same criteria should apply as organizations requesting for an initial allocation larger than /32. This proposal does not intend to change the current policy but to apply the current allocation practice to existing IPv6 address holders. If it is possible to expand the address space under the current policy, it is desirable to be documented clearly (e.g. in the guidelines document).