Hi David,
Do you plan to propose it to APNIC 33 Policy SIG?
If so, it's very welcome and let me remind you the deadline is Feb 2nd.
Rgs,
Masato Yamanishi
> -----Original Message-----
> From: sig-policy-bounces at lists dot apnic dot net
> [mailto:sig-policy-bounces at lists dot apnic dot net] On Behalf Of
> David Woodgate
> Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2012 4:41 PM
> To: sig-policy at apnic dot net
> Subject: [sig-policy] Is the multihoming requirement
> necessary for IPv6 portable assignments?
>
>
> I would like to canvass the opinion of this list as to whether the
> current multihoming requirement for portable IPv6 assignments is
> truly necessary, or whether it could be removed from APNIC's IPv6
> allocation policy.
>
> That is, should IPv6 portable addresses be made available to anyone
> upon request (with appropriate justifications and fees), without the
> requirement to be multihomed?
>
> At the moment, the only option for IPv6 addressing of a singly-homed
> network is assignment from their ISP (as an LIR). This of course
> should be fine for dynamically-assigned networks, or networks small
> enough to renumber, but it will pose significant challenges for large
> to very large statically-configured networks if they wish to change
> ISP, since that implies by current practice and paradigms that the
> customer will need to renumber their entire network to a new address
> space assigned by the new ISP.
>
> This issue can easily be removed, simply by making portable addresses
> readily available to any company, and the only apparent policy change
> required would be to remove the current multihoming requirement (i.e.
> changing section 5.9.1 of the current "IPv6 address allocation and
> assignment policy"). I believe that APNIC's standard fees and other
> assignment criteria would naturally stop requests from any companies
> other than those who really needed this for genuine business purposes
> anyway (since who is going to pay AU$4,175 or more for a /48 if they
> don't have to?), so I don't believe such a change would risk an
> explosion of the routing table or an excessive consumption of
> IPv6 resources.
>
> There otherwise does not seem to be any obvious value in retaining
> the multihoming requirement; so while it may be likely that many
> networks of that scale would be multihomed anyway, it does not seem
> necessary to demand it - therefore I suggest it should be removed as
> an unnecessary limitation, as in some circumstances it could hinder
> or add complexity to the aim of general IPv6 deployment.
>
> I'm eager to hear any thoughts about this idea from the members of
> this list, and I would be interested in working with someone to
> co-author a policy proposal.
>
> David Woodgate
>
> * 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
>