Dear SIG members

The proposal "prop-121: Updating “Initial IPv6 allocation” policy" has 
been sent to the Policy SIG for review.

It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting at APNIC 44 which will 
be held in Taichung, Taiwan on Wednesday and Thursday, 14 & 15 September 
2017.

We invite you to review and comment on the proposal on the mailing list
before the meeting.

The comment period on the mailing list before an APNIC meeting is an
important part of the policy development process. We encourage you to
express your views on the proposal:

  - Do you support or oppose this proposal?
  - Does this proposal solve a problem you are experiencing? If so,
    tell the community about your situation.
  - Do you see any disadvantages in this proposal?
  - Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear?
  - What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more
    effective?

Information about this proposal is available at:

    http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-121

Regards

Sumon, Ching-Heng, Bertrand
APNIC Policy SIG Chairs


------------------------------------------------------------------------

prop-121-v001: Updating “Initial IPv6 allocation” policy

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposer:       Jordi Palet Martinez 
                jordi.pa...@consulintel.es

Problem Statement
-----------------

The actual policy text (9.2.2. Account holders without existing IPv4
space) is assuming that an LIR will have more than 200 customers over a
period of 2 years, or it is already an IPv4 LIR.

However, it is a perfectly valid possibility to have small LIRs, which
may be never will have 200 customers, for example they may have a dozen
of big enterprise customers, or they may be a new LIR, not having any
IPv4 addresses (we all know the run-out problem) or may choose to use a
limited number of IPv4 addresses from their upstream providers, because
they don’t intend to provide IPv4 services.

It is also possible that the LIR is planning for a longer term than just
2 years, for example a government with a national network which may take
a longer period to deploy, connecting all kind of institutions at
different levels (ministries, schools, health centres, municipalities,
other public institutions, etc.).


Objective of policy change
--------------------------

To make sure that the policy is aligned with a wider set of possible
IPv6 deployment cases, including those indicated in the previous section
and facilitate the justification of the allocation/assignment size if a
bigger address block (versus the default one) is requested.


Situation in other regions
--------------------------
This situation, concretely in the case of big initial IPv6 allocations
to governments, has already occurred in RIPE, and the policy was updated
to be able to make those allocations. In some cases, a few governments
got delayed their deployments several years because the lack of an
appropriate policy covering their case.


Proposed policy solution
------------------------

Change some of the actual text as follows.

Actual text:

9.2.2. Account holders without existing IPv4 space

To qualify for an initial allocation of IPv6 address space, an
organization must:

1.   Be an LIR 
2.   Not be an end site 
3.   Plan to provide IPv6 connectivity to organizations to which it
     will make assignments.
4.   Meet one of the two following criteria:

 - Have a plan for making at least 200 assignments to other
   organizations within two years, or 

 - Be an existing LIR with IPv4 allocations from APNIC or an NIR, which
 will make IPv6 assignments or sub-allocations to other organizations 
 and announce the allocation in the inter- domain routing system within 
 two years.

Private networks (those not connected to the public Internet) may also
be eligible for an IPv6 address space allocation provided they meet
equivalent criteria to those listed above.


New text:

9.2.2. Account holders without existing IPv4 space

To qualify for an initial allocation of IPv6 address space, an
organization must:

1.   Be an LIR 
2.   Not be an end site 
3.   Plan, within two years, to provide IPv6 connectivity to other
     organizations/end-users to which it will make assignments.

The allocation size, in case an address block bigger than the default
one (as indicated in 9.2.1.) is requested, will be based on the number
of users, the extent of the organisation's infrastructure, the
hierarchical and geographical structuring of the organisation, the
segmentation of infrastructure for security and the planned longevity of
the allocation.

Private networks (those not connected to the public Internet) may also
be eligible for an IPv6 address space allocation provided they meet
equivalent criteria to those listed above.

Advantages of the proposal
--------------------------

Fulfilling the objective above indicated, so allowing a more realistic
alignment of the policy text with market reality under the IPv4
exhaustion situation.

Disadvantages of the proposal
-----------------------------
Possible abuse of the policy, which may be done equally creating new
LIRs, and it is expected that the evaluation process of a request from
APNIC will avoid it.


Impact on resource holders 
--------------------------
None.


References
----------
Links to the RIPE and LACNIC texts on request.







_______________________________________________
Sig-policy-chair mailing list
sig-policy-ch...@apnic.net
https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy-chair
Dear SIG members

The proposal "prop-121: Updating “Initial IPv6 allocation” policy" has 
been sent to the Policy SIG for review.

It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting at APNIC 44 which will 
be held in Taichung, Taiwan on Wednesday and Thursday, 14 & 15 September 
2017.

We invite you to review and comment on the proposal on the mailing list
before the meeting.

The comment period on the mailing list before an APNIC meeting is an
important part of the policy development process. We encourage you to
express your views on the proposal:

  - Do you support or oppose this proposal?
  - Does this proposal solve a problem you are experiencing? If so,
    tell the community about your situation.
  - Do you see any disadvantages in this proposal?
  - Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear?
  - What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more
    effective?

Information about this proposal is available at:

    http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-121

Regards

Sumon, Ching-Heng, Bertrand
APNIC Policy SIG Chairs


------------------------------------------------------------------------

prop-121-v001: Updating “Initial IPv6 allocation” policy

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposer:       Jordi Palet Martinez 
                jordi.pa...@consulintel.es

Problem Statement
-----------------

The actual policy text (9.2.2. Account holders without existing IPv4
space) is assuming that an LIR will have more than 200 customers over a
period of 2 years, or it is already an IPv4 LIR.

However, it is a perfectly valid possibility to have small LIRs, which
may be never will have 200 customers, for example they may have a dozen
of big enterprise customers, or they may be a new LIR, not having any
IPv4 addresses (we all know the run-out problem) or may choose to use a
limited number of IPv4 addresses from their upstream providers, because
they don’t intend to provide IPv4 services.

It is also possible that the LIR is planning for a longer term than just
2 years, for example a government with a national network which may take
a longer period to deploy, connecting all kind of institutions at
different levels (ministries, schools, health centres, municipalities,
other public institutions, etc.).


Objective of policy change
--------------------------

To make sure that the policy is aligned with a wider set of possible
IPv6 deployment cases, including those indicated in the previous section
and facilitate the justification of the allocation/assignment size if a
bigger address block (versus the default one) is requested.


Situation in other regions
--------------------------
This situation, concretely in the case of big initial IPv6 allocations
to governments, has already occurred in RIPE, and the policy was updated
to be able to make those allocations. In some cases, a few governments
got delayed their deployments several years because the lack of an
appropriate policy covering their case.


Proposed policy solution
------------------------

Change some of the actual text as follows.

Actual text:

9.2.2. Account holders without existing IPv4 space

To qualify for an initial allocation of IPv6 address space, an
organization must:

1.   Be an LIR 
2.   Not be an end site 
3.   Plan to provide IPv6 connectivity to organizations to which it
     will make assignments.
4.   Meet one of the two following criteria:

 - Have a plan for making at least 200 assignments to other
   organizations within two years, or 

 - Be an existing LIR with IPv4 allocations from APNIC or an NIR, which
 will make IPv6 assignments or sub-allocations to other organizations 
 and announce the allocation in the inter- domain routing system within 
 two years.

Private networks (those not connected to the public Internet) may also
be eligible for an IPv6 address space allocation provided they meet
equivalent criteria to those listed above.


New text:

9.2.2. Account holders without existing IPv4 space

To qualify for an initial allocation of IPv6 address space, an
organization must:

1.   Be an LIR 
2.   Not be an end site 
3.   Plan, within two years, to provide IPv6 connectivity to other
     organizations/end-users to which it will make assignments.

The allocation size, in case an address block bigger than the default
one (as indicated in 9.2.1.) is requested, will be based on the number
of users, the extent of the organisation's infrastructure, the
hierarchical and geographical structuring of the organisation, the
segmentation of infrastructure for security and the planned longevity of
the allocation.

Private networks (those not connected to the public Internet) may also
be eligible for an IPv6 address space allocation provided they meet
equivalent criteria to those listed above.

Advantages of the proposal
--------------------------

Fulfilling the objective above indicated, so allowing a more realistic
alignment of the policy text with market reality under the IPv4
exhaustion situation.

Disadvantages of the proposal
-----------------------------
Possible abuse of the policy, which may be done equally creating new
LIRs, and it is expected that the evaluation process of a request from
APNIC will avoid it.


Impact on resource holders 
--------------------------
None.


References
----------
Links to the RIPE and LACNIC texts on request.







_______________________________________________
Sig-policy-chair mailing list
sig-policy-ch...@apnic.net
https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy-chair
*              sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy           *
_______________________________________________
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy

Reply via email to