Re: [sig-policy] prop-073-v003: Automatic allocation/assignment of IPv6
Hash: SHA1
I support this version of the proposal.
Regards,
Seiichi
Randy Bush wrote:
> Dear SIG members
>
> Version 3 of the proposal "Automatic allocation/assignment of IPv6" has
> been sent to the Policy SIG for review. It will be presented at the
> Policy SIG at APNIC 28 in Beijing, China, 25-28 August 2009.
>
> More about the proposal can be found at:
>
> http://www.apnic.net/community/policy/proposals
>
> This new version of the proposal reflects feedback from the community
> received on the Policy SIG mailing list:
>
> - Section 4.2 of version 2 has been removed in this third version
> and the subsequent sections renumbered accordingly.
>
> - Section 4.3 from version 2 (now section 4.2) has been amended to
> reflect the removal of section 4.2 from version 2.
>
> - A new section 4.4 has been added to suggest that it is at the
> APNIC Secretariat's discretion to reserve IPv6 blocks under
> this proposal.
>
>
> We encourage you to express your views on the proposal:
>
> - Do you support or oppose this proposal?
> - Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear?
> - What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more
> effective?
>
> Randy, Jian and Ching-Heng
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> prop-073-v003: Automatic allocation/assignment of IPv6
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
>
> Authors: Terry Manderson
> <terry at terrym dot net>
>
> Andy Linton
> <asjl at lpnz dot org>
>
> Version: 3
>
> Date: 19 August 2009
>
>
>
> 1. Introduction
> ----------------
>
> This is a proposal to simplify the criteria for a member requesting an
> initial block of IPv6 addresses where the member already has an IPv4
> assignment or allocation.
>
> Under this proposal, APNIC would reserve the appropriately sized IPv6
> block for each APNIC member that has IPv4 addresses but does not yet
> have IPv6 addresses.
>
> It is further proposed that members holding IPv4 addresses be able to
> request the IPv6 space reserved for them through a simple one-step
> process.
>
>
> 2. Summary of current problem
> ------------------------------
>
> It is well understood that the final allocations of IPv4 address space
> are drawing very close.
>
> The community and APNIC Secretariat have done much to promote the
> adoption of IPv6. However, the authors recognize that the uptake of IPv6
> is less than ideal. As a result, the community is looking for ways to
> promote the adoption of IPv6 so that it can be added to members' network
> infrastructure.
>
> The authors believe that the current APNIC processes recognize that an
> entity which has satisfied IPv4 criteria has done enough work to be
> assessed for IPv6 resources.
>
> This policy proposal aims to further promote IPv6 adoption by
> simplifying the process of applying to APNIC for IPv6 address space.
>
>
> 3. Situation in other RIRs
> ---------------------------
>
> RIPE:
>
> 2008-02,"Assigning IPv6 PA to Every LIR", a similar, but certainly
> not the same, proposal, was withdrawn by the author due to lack of
> support. There had been concern about the impact on member fees and
> that by issuing IPv6 addresses that hadn't been explicitly requested
> the proposal could make IPv6 a commodity.
>
> http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2008-02.html
>
> ARIN:
>
> We understand that there have been discussions on this topic in the
> ARIN region but we have not identified a formal proposal.
>
> There have been no similar proposals in other regions.
>
>
> 4. Details of the proposal
> ---------------------------
>
> It is proposed that:
>
> 4.1 Alternative criteria be added to the IPv6 allocation and assignment
> policies to allow APNIC members that have IPv4 but no IPv6 space
> to qualify for an appropriately size IPv6 block under the matching
> IPv6 policy.
>
>
> 4.2 The size of the IPv6 delegation for members that meet the
> alternative criteria described in section 4.1 above will be based on
> the following:
>
> - A member that has an IPv4 allocation would be eligible for
> an IPv6 /32
>
> - A member that has received an IPv4 assignment under the
> multihoming policy would be eligible for an IPv6 /48
>
> - A member that has received an IPv4 assignment under the
> IXP or Critical Infrastructure policies would be eligible for
> an IPv6 /48
>
>
> 4.3 APNIC members can request the reserved IPv6 address block be
> allocated/assigned to their member account via a simple mechanism
> in existing APNIC on-line systems.
>
>
> 4.4 The APNIC Secretariat may reserve prefixes for any or all
> qualifying members to allow for a seamless allocation process. It
> is a responsibility of the Secretariat to select an appropriate
> reservation schedule, and as such the reservation of a prefix is
> not fixed in size, scope, nor time.
>
>
> To increase visibility of this proposal, the authors recommend that the
> APNIC Secretariat communicate to members and others that the criteria
> for receiving IPv6 space has been reduced and that the process of
> obtaining IPv6 address space has been made simpler. We recommend this to
> show that there is no effective barrier to members obtaining IPv6
> addresses.
>
> Current IPv6 policies are still available for members who apply for IPv6
> addresses without existing IPv4 addresses, or who apply for subsequent
> IPv6 resources.
>
>
> 5. Advantages and disadvantages of the proposal
> ------------------------------------------------
>
> 5.1 Advantages
>
> This proposal:
>
> - Allows APNIC to engage with all IPv4 resource holders alerting
> them to the need to start work on deploying IPv6 addressing.
>
> - Pre-approves IPv6 resource delegations based on existing IPv4
> holdings.
>
> - Increases member benefit by avoiding duplication and effort in
> applying to APNIC for IPv6 when they have already demonstrated
> their network needs for an IPv4 delegation.
>
> - Removes another barrier to IPv6 adoption by providing all eligible
> organizations with an IPv6 assignment or allocation through a
> simple request.
>
>
> 5.2 Disadvantages
>
> This proposal does not deal with the need to encourage holders
> of "Historic Internet resources" to apply for IPv6 address space.
>
>
> 6. Effect on APNIC members
> ---------------------------
>
> 6.1 Fees
>
> No member's fees will increase as a result of this proposal
> because under the APNIC fee schedule, assessed address fees
> are the greater of the IPv4 and IPv6 fees. This proposal was
> careful to ensure that IPv6 delegations would not increase a
> member's annual fees (based on the recently revised APNIC fee
> structure)
>
>
> 6.2 Responsibility
>
> A member would acquire the responsibility to manage
> and maintain a IPv6 allocation in the APNIC registry framework.
>
>
> 6.3 Address/Internet number resource consumption
>
> There are about 1300 current APNIC members that do not hold an IPv6
> allocation. Allocating a /32 to each of these members would result
> in a maximum of /22 to /21 of IPv6 address space allocated if
> all 1300 members requested space.
>
> The actual allocation would be less than this as some members would
> receive a /48.
>
>
> 7. Effect on NIRs
> ------------------
>
> The impact on any NIR would depend if the NIR adopts this proposal for
> their constituency.
>
> * 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
>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
iEYEARECAAYFAkqN4OMACgkQcrhTYfxyMkLjPgCdHBIAgHTa0F/rUaJ8UweU4TU0
Y1sAn0n7uXEcIK/9Hd1wf3dMTXHGJSMC
=OMRG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----