[sig-policy] Summary of discussion: prop-90
Hash: SHA1
_______________________________________________________________________
prop-090: Optimizing IPv6 Allocation Strategies
_______________________________________________________________________
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 change how the size of IPv6 allocations and end
site assignments are determined, allowing more room for LIRs to grow
within their allocation, while also preventing excessive address
consumption. The proposal also assists to prevent potential human errors
in configuration that can be caused by the current IPv6 policies, which
allow allocations and assignments to be made on non-nibble boundaries.
Discussion statistics
- ---------------------
Version 1 posted to Policy SIG mailing list: 12 January 2011
Version 2 posted to Policy SIG mailing list: 18 February 2011
Number of posts since proposal first posted: 31
Number of people participating in discussions: 15
Summary of discussion to date
- -----------------------------
- Comments that this proposal would mean easier allocation strategy
and that this would not affect the global routing table and could
have a positive long term effect if it means organizations do not
need additional blocks.
- It was suggested that allocating on nibble boundaries should be
put forward as best practice. Also supporting comments about the
difficulty of avoiding errors in hexadecimal arithmetic.
- It was pointed out by a supporter that a draft RIP NCC policy
proposes a new attribute called "assignment-size:" which sounds
similar to this proposal and that APNIC community should consider
something similar to the proposed RIPE changes in due course.
- There was a discussion about whether this proposal negates the
need for Prop-083.
- It was suggested not to include the formula N=48-(X+Y) and
concern was raised that it may be premature to provide a ‘
recommended provider assignment unit' of /48.
- Some reservation about the allocation criteria in Section 4.5 and
the point was made that Sections 4.5.2 and 4.5.3, as written,
prevent any new organization who isn't an ISP from obtaining IPv6
address space for their own use. It was pointed out that non-ISP
organizations would receive assignments rather than allocations.
The author confirmed that the intent was not to alter the 'end-
user' policy.
- The requirement to renumber within 5 years may be difficult for
operators to implement and for APNIC to enforce. The author
responded that organizations affected by this would be
'relatively small' and that at the end of 5 years, APNIC could
revoke the original block or that by this time they might qualify
for subsequent allocation under policies which do not require
return.
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-090
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.16 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iEYEARECAAYFAk1jfWcACgkQSo7fU26F3X3F2gCg2Jf40mIGcq/vPK8c2GX2447Q
LxsAn0alY8wrkDumnCXDenDE4wBzeffc
=g72T
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----