Re: [sig-policy] [Sig-policy-chair] prop-099 IPv6 Reservation
>
> Thanks for sharing this info.
>
>| APNIC does sparse allocation and reserves a /24 on the one-click
> allocations
>
>is this part of a policy? or APNIC does that for the sake of better
>management? Why not make it a policy?
I also have the same question. As more and more policies propose to allocate
larger IPv6 space by assuming that the address is abundant in the next 20 years
(or a century), is there a strategic planning of address space before doing so?
I mean will new applications, such as machine to machine communication
(or Internet
of Things), challenge the abundant address assumption?
Based on current usage of IPv6, I certainly agree that a /24
reservation seems to be
a right size for address management.
Ren-Hung
>
>Now the question left is /16 or /24.
>
> Hi Andy, others.
>
> In the context of this (and the other two proposals as well), will it
> be useful to know how APNIC practices sparse allocation. APNIC
> followed 'bisection' (or binary chop) for IPv4 untill it was not
> possible.
>
> I seems APNIC does sparse allocation and reserves a /24 on the
> one-click allocations, as is evidenced from this small snapshot from
> published data at
> http://ftp.apnic.net/stats/apnic/delegated-apnic-20110820.
>
> apnic|NP|ipv6|2400:9500::|32|20110501|allocated
> apnic|CN|ipv6|2400:9600::|32|20100318|allocated
> apnic|NP|ipv6|2400:9700::|32|20110501|allocated
> apnic|ID|ipv6|2400:9800::|32|20090212|allocated
> apnic|NP|ipv6|2400:9900::|32|20110501|allocated
> apnic|CN|ipv6|2400:9a00::|32|20100318|allocated
> apnic|NP|ipv6|2400:9b00::|32|20110501|allocated
> apnic|AU|ipv6|2400:9c00::|32|20090722|allocated
> apnic|PH|ipv6|2400:9d00::|32|20110502|allocated
> apnic|CN|ipv6|2400:9e00::|32|20100318|allocated
> apnic|NP|ipv6|2400:9f00::|32|20110502|allocated
> apnic|IN|ipv6|2400:a000::|32|20081208|allocated
> apnic|NP|ipv6|2400:a100::|32|20110503|allocated
>
>
> If APNIC is already reserving a /24 worth of IPv6 address per
> delegation, I think now we are simply debating whether that's a valid
> number or not. Or whether it should do binary chop for v6 as well.
>
> Paraphrasing from a note David Conrad sent to the RIPE address policy
> WG, binary chop was also one of the reasons cited when RIRs received
> the /12 from IANA. [1].
>
>
> - -gaurab
>
> [1]
>
> http://www.ripe.net/ripe/maillists/archives/address-policy-wg/2011/msg00745.html
>
>
--
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