Re: [sig-policy] IPv6 proposals summary and call for discussion
On Feb 8, 2011, at 12:03 AM, Gaurab Raj Upadhaya wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Dear Colleagues
>
> As mentioned in previous emails, we need to get as much discussion as
> possible underway before APNIC 31.
>
> There are three proposals directly related to APNIC's IPv6 policy. You
> can find the current APNIC IPv6 policies documented in the "IPv6
> address allocation and assignment policy" at:
>
> http://www.apnic.net/policy/ipv6-address-policy
>
>
> 1. Summary of IPv6 policy amendments
> - ------------------------------------
>
> prop-083: Alternative criteria for subsequent IPv6 allocations
>
> - Permit current APNIC account holders with networks in
> multiple locations but without a connecting infrastructure
> to obtain IPv6 resources for each location.
>
I support this policy. In the ARIN region, we already have such a
policy which we call "Multiple Discreet Networks". It has worked
well there.
>
> prop-087: IPv6 address allocation for deployment purposes
>
> - Permit networks using IPv6 deployment protocols to qualify
> to more than a /32 if they can show:
> - They are using such a deployment protocol AND
> - The protocol is documented in a Standards Track RFC
>
> NOTE: This proposal will not be presented for consensus
> decision making at APNIC 31.
>
I conditionally support this policy. I would want it to include restrictions
that limit the prefix size to no larger than a /24 per organization for
this purpose and making such applications temporary in nature.
While I recognize the operational need for 6rd and similar techniques
in order to deploy IPv6, I would hate to see such technologies rather
than native dual-stack become the mature state of IPv6 deployment.
>
> prop-090: Optimizing IPv6 allocation strategies
>
> - Changes how networks qualify for IPv6 allocations, and
> how APNIC makes IPv6 allocations by:
> - Replacing the HD ratio (used to calculate rates for
> additional allocations) with a different formula
> - Aligning APNIC allocations to nibble boundaries (/36,
> /32, /28, etc.)
> - Providing a new calculation for how LIRs should be
> assigning space to customers and alternative ways of
> showing sufficient utilization to justify more space
>
I support this policy, but, as the author, I may be somewhat biased. ;-)
This is now known as 2011-3 in the ARIN region as well.
It provides for nibble alignment not only at the LIR top level, but, also
allows at least one level of aggregation within the LIR to also be
aligned on a nibble boundary.
It provides for substantially larger possible allocations to LIRs to
improve potential aggregation and to allow for more flexible network
planning and deployment.
The anticipated total impact to the IPv6 free pool is negligible.
>
> 2. Next step: we need YOU!
> - ---------------------------
>
> Some initial questions to help the community begin discussion on the
> above proposals are:
>
> - Which proposals would APNIC be able to implement together?
I see no conflict between 083 and 090.
I think that 087 could be implemented as well, but, as I said, I'd like to
see some restrictions considered in order to prevent this from becoming
a default mature consumer IPv6 deployment.
> - Which proposals would it be difficult for APNIC to implement
> together?
No issues observed in these three proposals.
> - Do the changes suggested in these proposals reflect issues you
> have come across when you have deployed IPv6 on your network?
>
083: Addresses issues I have seen on several networks.
087: Not really, but, it does address issues I am aware of in other networks.
090: Yes and also issues I have seen on several other networks.
Owen