Hi, I guess hostmasters will reply, but let me provide some inputs below.
Regards, Jordi -----Mensaje original----- De: <[email protected]> en nombre de Hiroki Kawabata <[email protected]> Responder a: <[email protected]> Fecha: miércoles, 13 de septiembre de 2017, 12:17 Para: <[email protected]> Asunto: Re: [sig-policy] New proposal prop-121: Updating "InitialIPv6 allocation" 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. [Jordi] It should be possible, in my understanding, if the applicant is going to use /48 for end-customers, to provide that info for taking into account into an updated addressing plan for what new delegation size they need. 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. [Jordi] I don’t think so. If you have an addressing plan, that says for example: I’m a government, having a network connecting all my institutions. In the next 3 years I’m deploying this network, which has x municipalities, then xx schools, xxx health centers, xxxx tax offices, n ministries, yyy other public institutions. All them are structures under an umbrella of the different ministries (and I want to allocate each ministry a /32), and different federal governments (with also /32), so my network has xyz layers, etc., etc., it is very clear for a hostmaster when doing this evaluation to calculate the total prefix required. An alternative way to do so is having each ministry and each federal government to ask for their own /32. In total, the “consumption” one way or the other is almost the same, so the point is “let’s do a single LIR” for the government (again is only one example), which an aggregated prefix, instead of many LIRs. I think this will become much clearer in my presentation tomorrow. [Jordi] Not sure if staff from RIPE or LACNIC, which have already implemented this policy change, could explain (especially RIPE that got it about a couple of years ago), could confirm what I’m saying, in the sense that it is not more difficult but actually easier, if you did your homework with the right addressing plan. This also helps to “size” better the real needs of every “big” applicant, but doesn’t change what small and mediums ones, that have enough with /32, do today. Regards, Hiroki --- Hiroki Kawabata([email protected]) Hostmaster, IP Address Department Japan Network Information Center(JPNIC) Subject: Re: [sig-policy] New proposal prop-121: Updating "InitialIPv6 allocation" From: Anna Mulingbayan <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> > To: SIG policy <[email protected]> > > 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 <[email protected]>: > > 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 > > [email protected] > > > > 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 > > [email protected] > > https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy-chair > > > > * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * > > _______________________________________________ > > sig-policy mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy > * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy > * > _______________________________________________ > sig-policy mailing list > [email protected] > https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy > > > * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * > _______________________________________________ > sig-policy mailing list > [email protected] > https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy > * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list [email protected] https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.consulintel.es The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it. * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list [email protected] https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
