[sig-policy] Summary of discussion: prop-83
Hash: SHA1
_______________________________________________________________________
prop-083: Alternative criteria for subsequent IPv6 allocations
_______________________________________________________________________
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 the Policy
SIG.
Regards,
Gaurab, Ching-Heng, and Terence
Proposal summary
- ----------------
This is a proposal to enable current APNIC account holders with
existing IPv6 allocations to receive subsequent IPv6 allocations from
APNIC for use in networks that are not connected to the initial IPv6
allocation.
Discussion statistics
- ---------------------
Version 1 posted to Policy SIG mailing list: 3 February 2010
Version 2 posted to Policy SIG mailing list: 2 March 2010
Number of posts since proposal first posted: 12
Number of people participating in discussions: 6
Summary of discussion to date
- -----------------------------
- It was asked whether the interpretation of 'needs' as used in
APNIC policy reflect only utilization? Or should 'need' have a
wider definition to encompass operation needs such as network
design.
- It was suggested it could help if there was some wording that
suggests such allocations should be advertised from separate
autonomous systems.
- The author suggested that removal of restriction on de-
aggregation does not resolve the issue of maintaining the highest
level of connectivity possible.
- In response to discussion about the situation at the RIPE NCC,
Ingrid Wijte, provides links to RIPE discussion on proposal to
remove aggregation requirements.
- Concern was expressed that the need for a separate globally
routable prefix needs to be balanced by the consumption of the
/32s.
- It was asked that since removing restrictions on de-aggregation
has the same effect on the routing table as multiple delegations,
is this issue philosophical rather than technical given the size
of the IPv6 space.
- Others supported the proposal as it stands saying this would
resolve issues they face and reporting that ARIN has a policy
called Multiple Discreet Networks, which the poster says works
well there.
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-083
- --
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.16 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iEYEARECAAYFAk1jfOIACgkQSo7fU26F3X0HNgCeOFpDUn8uWKxgpvo9nMzKZKw7
ld8An0ZaNsMwVs4PA4eIpwWvR+/A+p+n
=P/Z2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----