Re: [sig-policy] prop-082: Removing aggregation criteria for IPv6 initia
On 02/02/2010, at 8:09 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
>
> - Do you support or oppose this proposal?
not just yet, as it stands.
[..snip..]
>
> 1. It is inconsistent with the criteria for IPv6 allocations under
> two other APNIC policies, which do not require aggregation. These
> policies are:
>
> - Subsequent IPv6 allocations
can you highlight the exact section in the IPv6 policies where subsequent allocation do not require aggregation?
> - The new kickstart IPv6 allocation criteria to be
> implemented 10 February 2010 [2]
I don't recall that aggregation was actually discussed either at the mic or on-list wrt prop-73.
Prop-73 called for simplification of application criteria. I don't believe the intent (at the time) was to remove the aggregation requirement. However that said see my response to prop-83.
>
> 2. Registry policy should not concern itself strongly with routing
> issues.
>
I'm mostly in agreement here. Registries are not the routing police. In which case cast your eyes over section 5.1 of the IPv4 policy.
>
> 4. Details
> -----------
>
> This is a proposal to:
>
> 4.1 Remove the requirement under the initial IPv6 allocation criteria to
> aggregate an initial IPv6 allocation as a single prefix.
>
"announce an initial allocation as a single (aggregate) prefix" perhaps?
>
> 4.2 Include a stronger recommendation about the importance of
> aggregation to the IPv6 policy document.
>
> The APNIC IPv6 policy document currently does include information
> about the importance of aggregation[3]. However, it is the opinion
> of this proposal's authors that the recommendation should be more
> strongly expressed.
>
therein I see organisations taking a black and white approach to 'strong recommendations'.
I dare say it may not affect the position on people's filtering practices.I think just leave it out.
>
> 5. Pros/Cons
> -------------
>
> 5.1 Advantages
>
> - This policy lowers the barriers for obtaining IPv6 address.
>
Does it? I could perhaps live with the case that this policy allows IPv6 addresses be deployed in scenarios that may have a better fit to an organisations current practice.
> - Other RIR communities are discussing removing aggregation
> requirements from their policies, so it would be appropriate for
> APNIC policy to maintain similar criteria to other regions.
>
I generally agree with removal of aggregation requirements, but not because the other RIRs are.
I think that removing aggregation requirements also aids in conservation in multi-site/multiple AS topologies. (He says glibly when thinking about the size of IPv6 ;)
>
> 5.2 Disadvantages
>
> - By removing the aggregation requirement in the policy,
> deaggregated routes may begin to be announced more frequently.
>
Agree.
>
> 7. Effect on NIRs
> ------------------
>
> None.
>
really??