Re: [sig-policy] prop-087: IPv6 address allocation fordeployment purpose
Hi Yi and Kosuke-san,
Thank you so much for your reply.
The point Yi mentioned was almost same as that of pointed out at
policy meeting in Japan.
> My problem with 'limited time' clause is that
> 1) I doubt APNIC has the resource to check/audit
I believe with a same scheme in the current IP address request (in
this case, the initial IPv6 address request larger than /32), it's
possible to check the resource.
> 2) if you have one account using the 6rd, you probably would not
> tear down the 6rd address block and return it to APNIC
I think this is ISP's risk, and they have to consider how to handle
such cases (this is operational issue, not policy issue, I think).
Yours Sincerely,
--
Tomohiro Fujisaki
From: Kosuke Ito <kosuke at bugest dot net>
Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-087: IPv6 address allocation fordeployment purposes
Date: Sun, 8 Aug 2010 22:15:26 +0900
| Hi Yi,
|
| > I doubt APNIC has been successful at reclaim back IP allocations.
|
| I do not think so.
|
| APNIC has successfully reclaimed the block for the experiment
| of the large space global IP address usage back to the public
| pool in the past.
| If APNIC and APNIC community properly check their activity of
| the 6rd, then the block would not be a give-away.
|
| Kosuke
|
|
| On Fri, 6 Aug 2010 08:46:04 -0700 (PDT)
| Yi Chu <yi_chu_01 at yahoo dot com> wrote:
|
| > My problem with 'limited time' clause is that 1) I doubt APNIC has the resource
| > to check/audit 2) if you have one account using the 6rd, you probably would not
| > tear down the 6rd address block and return it to APNIC
| >
| > I doubt APNIC has been successful at reclaim back IP allocations. I worry that
| > would be another 'legacy/historic block'.
| >
| > yi
| >
| >
| >
| > ----- Original Message ----
| > From: "fujisaki at syce dot net" <fujisaki at syce dot net>
| > To: yi_chu_01 at yahoo dot com
| > Cc: sig-policy at apnic dot net
| > Sent: Fri, August 6, 2010 3:55:57 AM
| > Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-087: IPv6 address allocation fordeployment
| > purposes
| >
| >
| > Hi Yi,
| >
| > Thank you for your comment.
| >
| > | I think any deployment decision should be done within the confines of the
| > | available resources, IP addresses included. If one does not have the
| > | justification and v6 addresses to deploy 6rd, then one should consider a
| > | different deployment approach, not the other way around.
| > |
| > | Any thoughts?
| >
| > I can see what you're saying, but in that sense, large address block
| > holders (maybe large ISPs) can use any deployment protocols but small
| > ISPs can use only limited deployment protocols. I think address block
| > size should not become a limitation to select deployment protocols,
| > especially in the IPv6 deployment phase (so I added a condition
| > this proposal is for a limited time only).
| >
| > Yours Sincerely,
| > --
| > Tomohiro Fujisaki
| >
| >
| >
| >
| > * 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
|
|
| --
| Kosuke Ito <kosuke[at]bugest.net>
|
| * 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
|
|