Re: [sig-policy] prop-057-v001: Proposal to change IPv6 initial allocat
Izumi Okutani said the following on 1/2/08 19:04:
This proposal is in fact intended to be most strict among RIRs and not
the same as Jordi's.
Not how I read it. :-(
I hope this clarifies that this proposal is not generous compared to
other RIRs and certainly doesn't intend to give out IPv6 allocations to
I think you need to update the text, unfortunately. It would certainly
be very helpful to have it updated to correct errors I previously
highlighted, as, reading it again right now, it doesn't reflect what you
are saying here in e-mail.
1) Ensure that a organization of a certain size with a plan to deploy
IPv6 will be the target
--> AfriNIC: show a reasonable plan for making + make route
announcement within 1 year
Your proposal has nothing about making a route announcement - so AfriNIC
is more strict.
--> ARIN: be an existing, known ISP in the ARIN region
I take that to mean LIR membership. What's an ISP? ;-)
--> LACNIC: Provide IPv6 services within 2 years
LACNIC is more strict - you can't provide services without announcing
--> RIPE: have a plan to sub-delegate to other organizations within 2
Same as your's, very very relaxed. No requirement to do anything at all.
--> proposal: be an LIR with IPv4 allocations and have a plan to
sub-delegate to other organizations within 2 years
(It has to meet an equivalent of *both* ARIN and RIPE's criteria in
This is very relaxed. No requirement to announce address space at all,
so no requirement to provide services. So yes, I'd say similar to RIPE
NCC's (not RIPE - different organisation, not the same community).
Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. A lot of history is
So, basically the proposal is saying: "if you are an LIR with IPv4
addresses and you plan to get at least two customers over the next 2
years, you can get an IPv6 /32". Reminds me of the way that Class Bs
were handed out to orgs with more than about 100 hosts.
If prop-053 also goes through, than basically any ISP who gets an IPv4
/24 can also get an IPv6 /32 by saying they have a plan to have 2
customers over the next 2 years.
Mind you, will JPNIC members understand that "plan to have 2 customers"
is actually just a plan, and not a mandatory requirement? I suspect you
might want to come along later and delete the word "plan" as people in
the JPNIC community may not understand what it means?
As I've said before, this proposal is not solving any known problem
apart from a mistranslation in one economy in our whole community. If
the upcoming APNIC meeting approves it, it basically removes all concept
of responsible address management for IPv6.