Re: [sig-policy] Discussion on IPv6 policy development
the address space of IPv6
is abundant and will not have exhaustion problem as IPv4, to discuss
the allocation size
at ad hoc thinking per proposal is really not a good approach. Also,
the less of practical
experience on running IPv6 as compared to IPv4 also makes the
discussion not well justified.
So, I agree at this moment, we shall have a working group planning the
IPv6 polices
at a strategic level.
Ren-Hung
(2011/08/03 4:31), Andy Linton wrote:
> Dear colleagues,
>
> I've been spending some time thinking about the policy development
> process. We have a process that's been in place for many years and it
> has served us pretty well. Our primary concern over the last few years
> has been the management of the IPv4 address space and its imminent
> exhaustion. To some degree we've been doing that using an issue by issue
> approach.
>
> I'm also conscious that we've had a long time to think about how we
> manage IPv6 address space and it's really only now that we're really
> turning our attention to that. If you look at the recent IPv6 policy
> proposals a large number of them have been about how to justify and
> manage requests for IPv6 address space which are larger than the minimum
> allocation. For example:
>
> http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-083
> http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-087
> http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-090
>
> and we have more about to appear on the agenda for this meeting:
>
> http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-098
> http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-099
> http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-0100
>
> In each case, those proposing the policy change are trying to deal with
> similar but different aspects of the same problem. This isn't
> about discouraging those who have specific issues from putting their
> concerns and possible solutions forward as proposals but I'm conscious
> that each time we put forward a proposal that deals with a specific case
> we tend to make the policies more complex and perhaps harder to implement.
>
> Would it be useful for us to look at this whole question of what a
> reasonable IPv6 allocation looks like from a strategic point of view
> rather than what appears to be the tactical approach we're using at present?
>
> I've discussed this with Terence, my fellow co-chair and we're wondering
> would it be useful for the Policy SIG to consider a working group that
> gathered evidence and requirements from the whole APNIC community about
> what's needed and report back to a future APNIC meeting with
> recommendations that help us to avoid developing policy in a fragmented way?
>
> There may be other ways to do this but would it be useful to have an
> item on the Policy SIG agenda in Busan to discuss this? We'll deal with
> the specific proposals that are being put forward of course but as this
> will be our first meeting in the new era it would be good to spend some
> time looking forward to IPv6 issues at a strategic level.
>
> Regards,
> andy
> * 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
--
Ren-Hung Hwang
Research Distinguished Professor
Dept. of Computer Science & Information Engineering
National Chung Cheng Univ.
Chia-Yi, Taiwan, 621
http://exodus.cs.ccu.edu.tw/~rhhwang
WebOffice: http://mmc.elearning.ccu.edu.tw/home/rhhwang