Thanks for this - I think I now have a better understanding of your perspectives.Thanks for your reply. Basically, my concerns can be addressed by replacing 'reasonable justification' with condition (a)(i) &(ii).
As stated at the start of section 4, the proposal is intended to replace only section 5.9.1 of APNIC's IPv6 addressing policy - so in the format you stated, that would be:
5.9.1. a(i) OR a(ii), OR 5.9.2. IXP OR 5.9.3. Critical InfrastructureThat is, the criteria for allocations to Internet Exchange Providers or Critical (Internet) Infrastructure would remain unchanged. (BTW, everyone should note that the intent of a(ii) - providing portable space for critical civic services - is *not* the same as 5.9.3, which concerns allocations of portable address space to Internet network infrastructure like root domain names, etc.)
So if the change were made to the proposal as written in the last email, this would mean multihoming by itself would *not* be an automatic justification for a portable assignment. My mild arguments for this would be along the same concerns as yours about reducing global routing table impacts, since I wouldn't want to see a proliferation of routes and AS paths just because it became a matter of status or kudos amongst technophiles to obtain portable addressing and a 4-byte AS number simply because their small home networks are connected to two providers, when in principle multihoming with IPv6 could be achieved using multiple addressing assigned from the different providers.
But I fully admit that I'm mainly trying to stimulate some discussion from the list for my own interest, and I suspect that there will actually be a good reason for a additional criterion of multihoming to be included; I'd just like someone else to articulate that necessity clearly!
I do remain concerned about the potential unintended impacts of removing the simple "reasonable technical justification". As a hypothetical example (of an admittedly contrived scenario), if someone wanted to develop new routing protocols (e.g. a new BGP implementation) and wanted a small test network which was portably addressed to do so, then I don't think that under a strict interpretation of (a)(i) and (a)(ii) alone that they would be eligible to do so - what would their options be then?
So I'd like to ask the list for their comments on the following: (A) Would the members of the list prefer to:(I) leave the proposal with "reasonable technical justification" as the only criterion for portable allocation (i.e. for interpretation by the Secretariat), or; (II) change the proposal to specify explicit criteria, as discussed between Terence and myself?
And if the proposal were changed to specify explicit criteria (instead of "reasonable technical justification"), then: (B) Would anyone who had previously supported the proposal then change their position to opposing it? (C) Should multihoming be added as one of those explicit criteria? That is, should multihoming remain as an automatic justification for portable address allocations? (D) Are there any other obvious additional criteria which would be considered essential for the proposal to be practical? (I'll note we should be aiming for the minimum of such criteria required to make the proposal work.)
(Please note that (B), (C) and (D) will be irrelevant if a clear preference emerges for remaining with "reasonable technical justification" as the criterion.)
I thank everyone for their thoughts in advance, David On 10/08/2012 8:49 PM, Terence Zhang YH wrote:
Hi David, Thanks for your reply. Basically, my concerns can be addressed by replacing 'reasonable justification' with condition (a)(i) &(ii). Now I am a little confused when you said 'multihoming would *not* by itself be sufficient justification for portable assignment' Currently portable assignment can be justified by 1. Multihoming OR 2. IXP OR 3. Critical Infrastructure Do you intend to change the above criteria to: 1 . a(i) OR a(ii) 2. IXP OR 3. Critical Infrastructure or do you intend to change to: 1. Multihoming OR 2. IXP OR 3. Critical Infrastructure OR 4. a(i) OR 5. a(ii) Since the current criterias are 'OR' conditions, I assume the latter change would be more appropriate. Thanks & Regards Terence----- Original Message ----- From: "David Woodgate" <dwoodgate5 at gmail dot com> To: "Terence Zhang YH" <zhangyinghao at cnnic dot cn> Cc: <sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net> Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2012 10:54 PM Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-101 Returned to mailing list and Newversion postedTerence, Thank you for stating your concerns so clearly. Would your concerns be addressed if the term "a reasonable technical justification" were simply deleted, and the two criteria currently identified as examples were to become the only specific options permitted? That is, changing the wording to: C. Requests by organizations that have not previously received an IPv4 portable assignment will need to be accompanied by: (a) EITHER: (i) Demonstration that the relevant network is statically addressed and of a size or complexity that would make IPv6 renumbering operationally impractical within an acceptable business period, together with evidence that dynamic or multiple addressing options are either not available from the relevant ISP or are unsuitable for use by the organization; OR: (ii) Demonstration that any future renumbering of the relevant network could potentially interfere with services of a critical medical or civic nature; AND (b) A detailed plan of intended usage of the proposed address block over at least the 12 months following allocation. I'm always concerned about *not* allowing the Secretariat scope for interpretation of the policies, because I doubt I'd be able to think of all of the scenarios that they would encounter. However, I *think* the criteria (a)(i) & (ii) above would cover all the situations I'm trying to address (but I would welcome any suggestions from the list about any realistic situations which might not be suitably covered). Would you consider that this change (if incorporated into a new draft of the proposal) would address your concerns? And to those on the list that have previously expressed support, would you continue to support the proposal if such a change were to be made? [BTW, it may be noted that under these two criteria that multihoming would *not* by itself be sufficient justification for portable assignment. My argument supporting this is that, given potential options with IPv6 for dynamic and multiple addressing, multihoming shouldn't necessarily mean that portable addressing will always be required or warranted, unless the situations described by criteria (a)(i) & (ii) applies anyway. I would be happy to discuss this further with anyone on this list if desired.] With best regards, David