Re: [sig-policy] prop-057-v001: Proposal to change IPv6 initial allocati
Hi,
I basically support this proposal since as Izumi-san mentioned,
hosting providers said that number is a barrier to apply the IPv6
address space in JP open policy meeting and other meetings discussing
IPv6 deployment in Japan.
One question, why is this proposal targeted existing IPv4 holders
only? I think it will be OK if 200 criteria is removed, because
RIR/NIR will examine the network plan for all address requests.
--
Tomohiro Fujisaki
| > I suppose the question we don't know the answer to is "how many
| > organisations simply don't bother applying for IPv6 space because they
| > believe they MUST deploy to 200 sites within 2 years".
| >
| > Note my wording, as that is the implication from the problem that the
| > authors of the proposal want to solve.
|
| Thanks for clarifying. This is indeed is the issue we are trying to
| solve.(i.e,to prevent people from misunderstanding the criteria and be
| reserved from make requests despite their needs.)
|
| We found out that out of 60 members we visited last year, more than half
| of small to medium LIRs haven't bothered to apply for allocations in the
| first place thinking they can't meet "200 assigments" criteria. This
| includes those who wish to start deployment as a test case first and not
| 100% sure to start as business, so the figure could be lower if you seek
| for those solid service plan. It still did help us see that there are
| real specific LIRs who wish to have this criteria removed.
|
| We also had voices raised in our own Policy Meeting that the "200"
| assignment is being a barrier to hosting providers as their customers
| don't match the number of assignments they make.
|
| I hope this clarifies the background.
|
|
| izumi
|
| Philip Smith wrote:
| > Guangliang Pan said the following on 29/1/08 16:11:
| >>
| >> Respond to a question - "How many organisations have been denied v6
| >> space under the current proposal?"
| >>
| >> There has been one IPv6 allocation request that did not initially
| >> include a plan for 200 assignments. An APNIC hostmaster contacted the
| >> organisation, which was able to include a plan for 200 assignments in
| >> its second email to APNIC.
| >
| > Thanks Guangliang!
| >
| > I suppose the question we don't know the answer to is "how many
| > organisations simply don't bother applying for IPv6 space because they
| > believe they MUST deploy to 200 sites within 2 years".
| >
| > Note my wording, as that is the implication from the problem that the
| > authors of the proposal want to solve.
| >
| > Has anything like this been asked in any recent member survey carried
| > out by KPMG? I'm curious, because in my extensive travels I don't find
| > anyone who is put off because they have completely mistaken the current
| > IPv6 allocation policy, yet both Jordi previously and the current
| > authors are somehow implying that there is a serious problem (without
| > supplying any evidence).
| >
| > philip
| > --
| > * 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
|
| * 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
|