Re: [sig-policy] [Sig-policy-chair] prop-099 IPv6 Reservation for Large
Hi Gaurab and all,
The binary chop algorithm that APNIC Secretariat use to allocate IPv6
does not specifically reserve space. The algorithm simply maximizes the
"distance" between neighbouring allocations. As more space gets
allocated, this distance will be reduced and fragmentation could occur.
But we could ask for more space from IANA when that time comes.
If any of the discussed policies (prop-098, prop-099, or prop-100) reach
consensus, APNIC Secretariat is considering dividing APNIC IPv6 pool
into 4 different 'reservation limit' blocks (each block will be sparsely
allocated). Something like this:
Pool block Reservation Maximum number
size size limit of accounts
/13 /28 32,768
/13 /24 2,048
/13 /20 128
/13 /16 8
While this is more administrative than policy in nature, I would be
interested to hear the community comments on this idea.
Cheers,
________________________________________________________________________
Sanjaya email: sanjaya at apnic dot net
Services Director, APNIC sip: sanjaya at voip dot apnic dot net
http://www.apnic.net phone: +61 7 3858 3100
________________________________________________________________________
* Sent by email to save paper. Print only if necessary.
On 20/08/2011 3:29 PM, Gaurab Raj Upadhaya wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
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
On 8/19/11 1:32 AM, Andy Linton wrote:
I'm conscious that this proposal has had very little attention in
the run up to the upcoming meeting - one person has expressed a
view on it.
This may be because people have been paying more attention to
prop-100. I see this proposal addressing some of the questions
raised by prop-100 in a different way.
I'd encourage you to look at this proposal before the meeting in
Busan.
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
- --
http://www.gaurab.org.np/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.16 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iEYEARECAAYFAk5PRiwACgkQSo7fU26F3X2oeQCaAnMoW2HpGK2V0yKoXag+VowC
MXwAniBfIO/K8rdHONnpmLZfbpnFty3E
=9/wV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
* 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