Re: [sig-policy] prop-083: Alternative criteria for subsequentIPv6 alloc

To: Policy SIG <sig-policy at apnic dot net>
Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-083: Alternative criteria for subsequentIPv6 allocations
From: Terry Manderson <terry at terrym dot net>
Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2010 15:49:03 +1000
Delivered-to: sig-policy at mailman dot apnic dot net
In-reply-to: <465197538.23551 at cnnic dot cn>
List-archive: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-policy>
List-help: <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=help>
List-id: APNIC SIG on resource management policy <sig-policy.lists.apnic.net>
List-post: <mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net>
List-subscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy>, <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy>, <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=unsubscribe>
References: <465197538.23551@cnnic.cn>

On 03/02/2010, at 9:45 PM, Terence Zhang YH(CNNIC) wrote:

> 
>      - Do you support or oppose this proposal?

Not sure.. yet.

>      - Does this proposal solve a problem you are experiencing? If so,
>        tell the community about your situation.

In past it did, and the sub-optimal solution was announce de-aggregates as well as the aggregate and hope that nearer entities listed to the more specifics and forwarded appropriately.

>      - Do you see any disadvantages in this proposal?

here lies the quandary, do we:
	a) allow members with topologically separate networks to get additional ipv6 prefixes for each site, probably providing far in excess of what they need? 

	or

	b) remove any language about aggregation (for which many network filters' lives cling to) which, might I add, may not change the actual route-ability/reach of the de-aggregates?

	or both?

knowing in both cases the net addition to the IPv6 routing system will be approximately the same (well "b" may be +1 for the aggregate) where all else (such as traffic engineering) remain the same.

so which is seen as more attractive? conservation?, or aggregation?

I further find in interesting that such a topic, separate sites that require separate prefixes and separate announcements from presumably (but not always) separate ASNs, is not covered in either the v4 or v6 policies from what I could see.

How is this handled now by the secretariat? Networking plans? case by case? ie "I have 5 sites across the asia pacific that are not, and never will be, connected."

perhaps this points to an omission in prop-73 regarding initial allocations.

thinking aloud:
	Consider the ISP with POPs in 3 locations that has a different upstream for each site. They have 2 x /24s and a single /21 IPv4 allocations advertised with different ASNs. Current policy would probably provide them with a 'justification free' initial allocation of a /32. However if they de-aggregate they might find that the more specifics have no reach. And further the HD ratio would most likely prevent them from getting an additional v6 allocation/assignment. 

>      - Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear?

nope.

>      - What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more
>        effective?
> 

not sure yet.