Note, the below does not impact Americans using "IPv6 Technology" with IPv8 Addressing.
Jim Fleming http://www.in-addr.info 3:219 INFO http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Fleming" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "@ Jim Fleming" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, October 19, 2001 11:33 AM Subject: Fw: Summary of recent IPv6 discussions within APNIC and RIPE > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Thomas Narten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Friday, October 19, 2001 11:07 AM > Subject: Summary of recent IPv6 discussions within APNIC and RIPE > > > > Here is a summary of recent activity related to IPv6 addressing > > policy. Credit goes to Richard Jimmerson for putting it together with > > help from RIPE and APNIC. > > > > This will serve as background for the upcoming v6 WG meeting in Miami, > > where these topics will be discussed. > > > > Thomas (with WG Chair hat in place) > > > > ***** APNIC ***** > > > > There was a joint IPv6/Policy session relating to iPv6 address policy > > held at the last APNIC meeting. During this session there were two > > separate IPv6 policy proposals made. The following day these two > > policy proposals were merged. There was consensus that many of the > > principles outlined in the proposal document were sound, but there > > was general agreement that further discussion was needed at the global > > level -- in particular, the initial allocation size from the RIRs. > > > > There was consensus that the IPv6 bootstrap period should be extended > > until the next IPv6 policy is implemented, with the understanding that > > the next policy takes account of bootstrapping needs. > > > > There was consensus to accept the proposal for APNIC to assign IPv6 > > address space to Internet exchanges. The assignment size agreed upon > > was a /64. > > > > ***** RIPE NCC ***** > > > > There were two separate sessions that covered the topic of IPv6 > > addressing policy -- 1) The IPv6/LIR joint session > > 2) The IPv6/LIR/EIX joint session > > > > 1) The IPv6/LIR joint session discussed the IPv6 policy proposal > > language, summarized the discussions that took place at the APNIC > > meeting, and reviewed a proposal submitted by Dave Pratt. > > > > There were many similarities between these three offerings. The group > > seemed to agree on principles such as using the HD-ratio for checking > > utilization, the fact current IPv4 utilization would be considered > > when evaluating an initial request for IPv6 address space, and many > > other points from the IPv6 proposal language, but objected to the > > references to "slow start," as there was concern the minimum allocation > > size may be too small and that LIRs would have to return to the RIR > > too often. > > > > One of the main points that was left open and identified as needed > > further discussion was the initial allocation size from the RIR. It > > was agreed that this point and others would be best discussed on a > > global mailing list so the discussions of the three regions remained > > in sync. > > > > It was also decided that the RIRs should continue work on an interim > > policy document with the help of the community while these discussions > > are going on. It was felt that even though there are still some open > > issues, the new proposed policies are much better than what we have now. > > > > 2) The IPv6/LIR/EIX joint session discussed the proposed policy of > > the RIPE NCC assigning IPv6 address space to exchange points. There was > > much discussion about what size to assign IXes (/64 or /48). It was > > argued some IXes may need more than a /64, so a /48 should be assigned > > for purposes of administrative ease. Many people supported this notion, > > as almost every other type of "site" would receive a /48 anyway. > > > > It was also observed that IXes may not even need space from the RIR > > and that they could use link-local addresses. It was countered that > > link-local may not work because some exchange customers may want to > > traceroute to one another. > > > > The final consensus was that exchange points should receive their > > IPv6 address space from a RIR. > > > > >
