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

To: sig-policy at apnic dot net
Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-083: Alternative criteria for subsequentIPv6 allocations
From: Izumi Okutani <izumi at nic dot ad dot jp>
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 11:08:07 +0900
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>
User-agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812)

>      alternative criteria, account holders must:
>
>       - Be a current APNIC account holder with an existing IPv6
>         allocation
>       - Be announcing its existing IPv6 allocation
>       - Demonstrate that the LIR has additional networks that are not
>         connected to the network announcing its existing IPv6 allocation
>

We can understand the needs for a seperate globally routable prefix, but
feel we should consider this proposal in balance with the consumption of
the /32s.

I think some data would be helpful to give us an idea and make up our
mind - Skeeve/anyone has any data about this?

For example, in case of Japan, JPNIC makes about 3-4% of multiple ASNs
to the same organization out of 705 total assignments.

If seperate network = seperate global ASN, we can probably assume the %
will be similar for additional /32s and have a rough idea on if this
could be acceptable. The figure could grow if seperate networks don't
bind to global ASN.


izumi/JPNIC