[sig-policy] Summary of discussion: prop-087 - redux
prop-087: IPv6 address allocation for deployment purposes
Dear SIG members
Below is a summary of discussions on the proposal to date. We encourage
you to continue discussions on the mailing list before Thursday's Policy
Randy, Ching-Heng, and Terence
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
Posted to Policy SIG mailing list: 26 July 2010
Number of posts since proposal first posted: 25
Number of people participating in discussions: 11
Summary of discussion to date
- It was suggested that the proposal was a way of encouraging IPv6
- In response to a question why current policy couldn't be used to
justify an allocation larger than /32, it was explained that the HD
ratio would make it very difficult to get an appropriately sized
block for a network deploying IPv6 using a protocol such as 6rd.
- There was concern expressed about the practicality of reclaiming
unused addresses allocated via this proposed policy. In response,
it was noted that APNIC has successfully reclaimed other space.
- It was suggested that any allocations made under the proposed
policy be made from a publicly defined block of addresses.
- There was discussion about whether a protocol such as 6rd really
required more than a /32. The author explained that for networks using
IPv4 address ranges from separate /8s it would would be operationally
complex to manage multiple 6rd domains.
- It was suggested that operators could multihome IPv4 customers behind
10/8 and use that as a large, integral numberpool for 6rd. However,
the author questioned CPE capabilities to handle multiple address
- There was concern about tying address policy to an IETF RFC. In
response, it was noted that experimental allocation criteria in APNIC
currently permits use of an experimental RFC.
Full details of the proposal, including links to previous discussions,
can be found at: