Re: [sig-policy] Final call for comments: prop-033-v001 "End site assign
Izumi Okutani wrote:
> Sanjaya wrote:
>
>>Geoff Huston wrote:
>>
>>>At 07:08 PM 25/09/2006, Izumi Okutani wrote:
>>>
>>>>Hi, I received some questions from our LIRs about this proposal and
>>>>thought I'd share them on this list as well.
>>>>
>>>>+ Should the initial allocation criteria be changed with this policy to
>>>> 200 customers, instead of /48s?
>>>>
>>>>$B!!(B"have a plan for making at least 200 /48 assignments to other
>>>> organizations within two years."
>>>
>>>This could be a logically consistent change, in that it appears that the
>>>intent of the Ipv6 allocation policy is to allow IPv6 resource
>>>allocations to be available to service providers with customers.
>
> Thanks. Yes, it seems to me that /48 has lost its original context now
> that ISPs can assign any size to its customers.
This, my understand, is not influencing to the initial allocation
criteria of having a plan of service size at least 200 /48s assignments
to other organizations (maybe 200 "customers" when assigning a /48 each)
within two years.
And also, the original policy does mention that it is on the LIRs
decision which size of address space up to a /48 to their customers.
RIR/NIR will not give any comment on it unless LIR need to assign
the larger size than a /48 to a customer.
>From the beginning, the assignment size is flexible between /48 to /64.
>>>>+ What would be the minimum registration requirements per endsite?
>>>> A suggestion JPNIC has is to allow all dynamic assignments and /64s to
>>>> be aggregated as LIR's infrastructure, but require all other
>>>> assignments per endsite, to be consistent with v4.
>>>
>>>Would there be any particular motivation to deviate from a practice that
>>>is consistent with Ipv4? (I can't think of any at this stage.)
>>
>>The reason I can think of is the overall size of the IPv6 space. If people
>>starts registering /64s and smaller assignments to the NIR/RIR, our disk storage
>>will fill up rather quickly and the utilization calculation will take longer.
>>I'm not saying this can't be done.
>>
>>Considering that the registration requirement primary reason is to measure
>>utilization, how about aggregating the assignment report to whatever size the HD
>>ratio calculation is based on? And can we confirm that it is now based on /56?
>>
>
> I understand the registration requirement as for clarifying who is in
> responsible of the address space as well as for calculating utilization.
> Assuming this is the case, wouldn't it blur who is responsible for the
> address space if we allow aggregation in /56?
I agree.
There is no technical reason to say which size.
It is the matter of balancing between how precisely RIR/NIR need
to know the utilization of allocated address space and how easy
each LIR report/register it with the reasonably low overhead.
Kosuke
>
> Izumi
>
> * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
> _______________________________________________
> sig-policy mailing list
> sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net
> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
>
>
--
***************IPv6 Internet Wonderland!******************
Kosuke Ito
Master Planning and Steering Gr., IPv6 Prom. Council of JP
New Business Office/President Office, IRI Ubiteq, Inc.
(Visiting Researcher, SFC Lab. KEIO University)
Tel:+81-3-3344-7511 Fax:+81-3-3344-7522
Cell:+81-90-9826-4220
mailto: kosuke[at]v6pc.jp http://www.v6pc.jp/
mailto: k-ito[at]ubiteq.co.jp
Lifetime e-mail: kosuke[at]stanfordalumni.org