Re: [sig-policy] prop-057-v001: Proposal to change IPv6 initial allocat
I understand your concern now. If I read it correctly, you feel this
proposal is too relaxed as it doesn't require any commitment for route
The reason why we didn't mention it was because it is already a part of
criteria c), but I personally don't have a problem about incorporating
this part into d) as part of two years's commitment.
Let me discuss it with my co-author Toshi to see how we can revise it
and get back to the list again. Your input was really helpful. Thanks!
Philip Smith wrote:
> Hi Izumi,
> 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
>> our proposal)
> 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
> being ignored.
> 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.
> * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
> sig-policy mailing list
> sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net