Re: [sig-policy] prop-057-v001: Proposal to change IPv6 initial allocat
I've modified the proposed criteria to add a plan for routing
annoucement within two years:
- Have a plan for making at least 200 assignments to other
organizations within two years, OR;
- Be an existing LIR with IPv4 allocations from an RIR/NIR AND have
a plan for making assignments and/or sub-allocations to other
organizations within two years. *The LIR should also plan to
announce the allocation as a single aggregated block in the
inter-domain routing system within two years.*
It's inteded to allocate IPv6 to organizations which are equivalent in
scale as in IPv4 and has a plan to distribute IPv6 to other organizations.
Comments are welcome on whether this criteria adequately reflects the
Izumi Okutani wrote:
> Hi Philip,
> 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
> annoucements/service plan?
> 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
> * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
> sig-policy mailing list
> sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net