Re: [sig-policy] prop-057-v001: Proposal to change IPv6 initial allocat
Izumi Okutani said the following on 31/1/08 19:17:
I note a few other voices of support for this proposal on the mailing
list, so I don't think we can be sure that the problem is closed within
Japan. If we also look worldwide, similar proposal was supported and
implemented in all other regions except APNIC.
It absolutely was not! Look at the "Situations in other RIRs" text of
this very proposal. ;-) Even the text there contradicts itself.
ARIN threw Jordi's proposal out - they still require a plan for 200
assignments. The other RIRs have replaced "200" with text including
"reasonable plan" or "must make IPv6 assignments", etc. I've cut and
pasted below. The first para, btw, is plain wrong.
All RIRs except APNIC no longer require a mandatory plan for 200
The current IPv6 initial allocation criteria (in relation to assignment
requirements) in each region are below:
...be an existing, known ISP in the ARIN region or have a plan
for making at least 200 /48 assignments to other organizations
within five years.
...show a reasonable plan for making /48 IPv6 assignments to
end sites in the AfriNIC region within twelve months. The LIR
should also plan to announce the allocation as a single
aggregated block in the inter-domain routing system within
...Offer IPv6 services to clients or entities owns/related
(including departments and/or sites) physically located within
the region covered by LACNIC within a period not longer than
- RIPE NCC
...have a plan for making sub-allocations to other organisations
and/or End Site assignments within two years.
This proposal for the APNIC region is the most generous of the lot,
simply saying you'll get IPv6 if you have an existing IPv4 allocation.
There is no requirement that an LIR do anything with the IPv6 allocation
at all. I'd suggest this goes against APNIC's principle of stewardship
and fair distribution of Internet resources, and allows LIRs to hoard
And then you said you are open to modifications to the this proposal as
long as the modifications don't "give away IPv6"??
Why all the contradictions?
As I've already said, this proposal is completely flawed. It should
firstly get its facts correct, and then it should come up with a
reasonable suggestion for replacement of "200" so that APNIC doesn't
simply end up giving away IPv6 address space to all comers.