Re: [sig-policy] prop-057-v001: Proposal to change IPv6 initial allocati

To: "Jonny Martin" <jonny at jonnynet dot net>

Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-057-v001: Proposal to change IPv6 initial allocation criteria

From: "Che-Hoo CHENG" <chcheng at ieee dot org>

Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2008 06:10:15 +0800

Cc: sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net

Delivered-to: sig-policy at mailman dot apnic dot net

In-reply-to: <B883AB22-CFC2-49CE-8CA2-1D1F114EC5D2 at jonnynet dot net>

List-archive: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-policy>

List-help: <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=help>

List-id: APNIC SIG on resource management policy <sig-policy.lists.apnic.net>

List-post: <mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net>

List-subscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy>, <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=subscribe>

List-unsubscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy>, <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=unsubscribe>

References: <4799E61F.8060300@psg.com> <B883AB22-CFC2-49CE-8CA2-1D1F114EC5D2@jonnynet.net>

Sender: chehoo@gmail.com

At least, I see one problem with the existing policy, i.e. if I'm an end user network of IPv6 (IPv4 too) and I may not do any further assignment but I need to do multihoming, I can only get a /48 portable assignment. However, some IPv6 networks filter out announcements longer than /35 (or other prefix length). What can I do now?

This proposal does solve this problem (or if there is change to portable assignment policy).

Che-Hoo

On Jan 26, 2008 5:54 AM, Jonny Martin <jonny at jonnynet dot net> wrote:

On 26/01/2008, at 2:37 AM, Randy Bush wrote:

> The proposal 'Proposal to change IPv6 initial allocation criteria' has
> been sent to the Policy SIG for review. It will be presented during
> the
> Policy SIG sessions at APNIC 25 in Taipei, Taiwan, 25-29 February
> 2008.
>
> The proposal's history can be found at:
>
> http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-057-v001.html
>

Now I wholeheartedly support the deployment of v6, however currently
I fail to see the actual requirement for this proposal. Current
wording is purely for a *plan* for 200 v6 customers. I have plans
for a lot of things. Reality is often quite different to those plans.

I don't see this proposal directly promoting the *deployment* of v6.
If members feel that the biggest obstacle in the way to deploying -
in any capacity - v6 was justifying an initial allocation, then how
are they going to get on when it comes to actually implementing it.

Are there any members out there who have not been able to obtain v6
space under the current policy? If there is demonstrably a real
problem here then I am happy to change my view on this policy.
Otherwise I'm going to expend my efforts on actual problems.

Cheers,
Jonny.

* 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