Hi Anna,
For those requesting larger than the minimum delegation size, hostmasters will
evaluate information such as detailed addressing plan, number of users, network
infrastructure/diagram and additional information as required in the proposal.
> We feel the new policy proposal would provide sufficient guidelines for
hostmasters to evaluate IPv6 requests.
Thanks for sharing your practice.
My understanding is as follows,
* When applicant want to get IPv6 prefix larger than the minimum delegation
size, you are counting the number of /56 assignments using the provided
information from applicant.
* Only if the above total /56 assignments meet the threshold written in policy
document, the applicant can be received new IPv6 prefix.
In proposal document,
> the
> hierarchical and geographical structuring of the organisation, the
> segmentation of infrastructure for security and the planned longevity of
> the allocation.
Of course, I also think it is helpful guidelines. But, about the above points,
It maybe sometimes difficult for us to evaluate the information provided by
applicant.
Regards,
Hiroki
---
Hiroki Kawabata(kawab...@nic.ad.jp)
Hostmaster, IP Address Department
Japan Network Information Center(JPNIC)
Subject: Re: [sig-policy] New proposal prop-121: Updating "InitialIPv6
allocation"
From: Anna Mulingbayan <a...@apnic.net>
Date: Mon Sep 11 2017 17:57:28 GMT+0900
Hi Satoru
If this proposal were to be implemented, APNIC hostmasters will evaluate IPv6
resource requests from account holders without existing IPv4 space by verifying
the following criteria are met:
- be an LIR
- not an end-site
- two years plan to provide v6 connectivity to end-users
For those requesting larger than the minimum delegation size, hostmasters will
evaluate information such as detailed addressing plan, number of users, network
infrastructure/diagram and additional information as required in the proposal.
> We feel the new policy proposal would provide sufficient guidelines for
hostmasters to evaluate IPv6 requests.
Thanks
Anna
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Re: [sig-policy] New proposal prop-121: Updating "InitialIPv6
allocation"
Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2017 15:33:22 +0900
From: Satoru Tsurumaki <satoru.tsurum...@g.softbank.co.jp>
To: SIG policy <sig-pol...@apnic.net>
> Dear Colleagues,
> > I am Satoru Tsurumaki from Policy Working Group in Japan.
> I would like to share key feedback in our community for prop-121,
based on a meeting we organised on 5th Sep to discuss these proposals.
> > Many opposing comments were expressed on the proposal with
reasons below.
> * Under the current criteria, networks with IPv4 can receive IPv6
easily. However, with adoption of this proposal, this consideration
based on IPv4 network will be removed, and the policy could become
more strict for some applications.
> * Would like to confirm how specifically APNIC secretariat will
evaluate requests under this policy. The criteria becomes ambiguous
with this proposal which would make it harder for applications to
prepare for the evaluation.
> * Approach may not be the right one to achieve the objective of IPv6
promotion
> * From the current IPv6 allocation criteria, it is unlikely to have
many cases where criteria. d is being the barrier to receive IPv6
space.
> > Best Regards,
> Satoru Tsurumaki
Policy Working Group
Japan Open Policy Forum
> 2017-08-09 15:19 GMT+09:00 chku <c...@twnic.net.tw>:
> 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
* 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
>
* 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
* 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
