Re: [sig-policy] prop-087: IPv6 address allocation fordeployment purpose
Hash: SHA1
Fujisakisan,
Clarifying question.
Can you explain why Section 5.2.3 a. of the
current allocation policy is not good enough
to address needs for an allocation greater
than /32?
Regards,
Seiichi
Randy Bush wrote:
> Dear SIG members,
>
> The following proposal, "IPv6 address allocation for deployment
> purposes," has been sent to the Policy SIG for review. It will be
> presented at the Policy SIG at APNIC 30.
>
> We invite you to review and comment on the proposal on the mailing list
> before the meeting.
>
> The comment period on the mailing list before an APNIC meeting is an
> important part of the policy development process. We encourage you to
> express your views on the proposal:
>
> - Do you support or oppose this proposal?
> - Does this proposal solve a problem you are experiencing? If so,
> tell the community about your situation.
> - Do you see any disadvantages in 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?
>
> Information about this policy proposal is available at:
>
> http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-087
>
> randy, Ching-Heng, and Terence
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> prop-087-v001: IPv6 address allocation for deployment purposes
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Author: Tomohiro Fujisaki <fujisaki at syce dot net>
>
> Version: 1
>
> Date: 26 July 2010
>
> 1. Introduction
> ----------------
>
> This is a proposal to add alternative criteria for receiving a larger
> than /32 initial IPv6 allocation during the initial IPv6 deployment
> phase (from now until 2013). Under this proposal, a network can
> justify more than a /32 if the network is using deployment protocol
> described in a RFC.
>
> 2. Summary of the current problem
> ----------------------------------
>
> Current IPv6 address allocation policy is basically based on number of
> subscribers the applicant will have [1], but this does not allow
> sufficient allocation size to adequately deploy some IPv6
> protocols. For example, the "6rd" protocol needs more than /32 to
> implement adequately in an ISP network due to technical reasons
> [2]. Therefore, criteria to allow allocations based on technical
> justification is necessary.
>
> 3. Situation in other RIRs
> ---------------------------
>
> ARIN has two related draft policies under discussion:
>
> 2010-9: IPv6 for 6rd
> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2010_9.html
>
> 2010-12: IPv6 Subsequent Allocation
> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2010_12.html
>
> RIPE has discussed the possibility of a policy proposal for 6rd,
> but no formal proposal has yet been submitted.
>
> There has been no similar discussion in AfriNIC or LACNIC.
>
> 4. Details
> -----------
>
> This proposal contains two phases:
>
> 1. IPv6 deployment phase (now until 2013)
> 2. After the deployment phase
>
> It is proposed that:
>
> 4.1 In the IPv6 deployment phase (til 2013), networks using an IPv6
> deployment protocol specified in an Standard track RFC are eligible
> for initial allocations larger than a /32.
>
> Requestors must specifically refer to the deployment protocol they
> are using and the number of the RFC describing it.
>
>
> 4.2 After the deployment phase ends, networks that have received an
> allocation under the criteria described in section 4.1 above must
> demonstrate the usage of that address space.
>
> - If the network can justify continued use of the larger than /32
> address allocation by demonstrating it is in accordance with the
> HD-Ratio based utilization policy, the network may keep the entire
> address block.
>
> - If the network cannot demonstrate that it is in accordance with
> the HD-Ratio based utilization policy, it will need to return the
> excess portion of its address block to APNIC.
>
> 5. Pros/Cons
> -------------
>
> Advantages:
>
> - This proposed policy makes it easier to implement a IPv6 network.
> For example, new deployment protocols such as "6rd" can be
> implemented easily with this proposal.
>
> Disadvantages:
>
> - Some deployment protocols need IPv6 address blocks larger than
> current criteria and this might waste IPv6 addresses.
>
> 6. Effect on APNIC
> -------------------
>
> APNIC members can obtain larger IPv6 address blocks for IPv6 deployment.
>
> 7. Effect on NIRs
> ------------------
>
> NIRs can select to implement this proposal or not.
>
> 8. References
> --------------
>
> [1] See section 5.2, "Initial allocation" in "IPv6 address allocation
> and assignment policy"
> http://www.apnic.net/policy/ipv6-address-policy#5.2.3
>
> [2] See section 11, "IPv6 Address Space Usage" in "IPv6 Rapid Deployment
> on IPv4 Infrastructures (6rd)"
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-softwire-ipv6-6rd-10#section-11
> * 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)
iEYEARECAAYFAkxRk9oACgkQcrhTYfxyMkIpEACfZLRkDp32sNP7ec2g10hCOtT0
Vh4An0bUKHtusa0iMOwwaB4EH9Kz+kPG
=5vCd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----