Hi Jordi, Thank you for clarification. I understand that this policy is for those who are not IPv4 account holder.
Thanks, 2017-09-14 8:59 GMT+08:00 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email protected]>: > Hi Satoru, > > To make it short. You said: > > “We support the motivation of the proposal. However, there were some > who felt that this policy could make it more difficult as unintended > consequence. > > The biggest concern is that for those networks based on IPv4, you are > able to receive an equivalent IPv6 space, based on the size of your > IPv4 holding. If you remove this criteria, there is no assurance to be > able to receive equivalent IPv6. > > On this criteria, we can support if the proposal maintains evaluation > based on current IPv4 holding and make it an OR condition for those > who do not want to apply based on IPv4 holding.” > > My interpretation of my proposal, is that I’m not changing that. I only > change the allocation size *in case* you request something bigger. But I’m > happy to “tune” the text to make it clear if needed. > > Regards, > Jordi > > > -----Mensaje original----- > De: Satoru Tsurumaki <[email protected]> > Responder a: <[email protected]> > Fecha: jueves, 14 de septiembre de 2017, 8:54 > Para: <[email protected]> > CC: SIG policy <[email protected]> > Asunto: Re: [sig-policy] New proposal prop-121: Updating "InitialIPv6 > allocation" > > Hi Jordi, > > Thank you for your response. > > > > 2017-09-09 12:40 GMT+08:00 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ > <[email protected]>: > > Hi all, > > > > See my comments below in-line as [Jordi]. > > > > Regards, > > Jordi > > > > > > -----Mensaje original----- > > De: <[email protected]> en nombre de Satoru Tsurumaki > <[email protected]> > > Responder a: <[email protected]> > > Fecha: viernes, 8 de septiembre de 2017, 14:34 > > Para: SIG policy <[email protected]> > > Asunto: Re: [sig-policy] New proposal prop-121: Updating "InitialIPv6 > allocation" > > > > 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. > > > > [Jordi] I think is in the other way around. With the proposal, I’m > removing the requirement for “at least 200 customers” (there may be ISPs that > have much less number of customers than that) and “be an existing LIR with > IPv4 allocations”. There is not more IPv4 space, is not realistic to have > such requirement, furthermore, in the short term, I’m sure, there will be > IPv6-only ISPs, so again not reason for asking them to have IPv4 allocations. > > > We support the motivation of the proposal. However, there were some > who felt that this policy could make it more difficult as unintended > consequence. > > The biggest concern is that for those networks based on IPv4, you are > able to receive an equivalent IPv6 space, based on the size of your > IPv4 holding. If you remove this criteria, there is no assurance to be > able to receive equivalent IPv6. > > On this criteria, we can support if the proposal maintains evaluation > based on current IPv4 holding and make it an OR condition for those > who do not want to apply based on IPv4 holding. > > > > > > * 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. > > > > [Jordi] This has been running with the same text in RIPE region, and > has not been considered as an issue by the staff, so I guess here we can take > the advantage of that experience. > > > > * Approach may not be the right one to achieve the objective of > IPv6 promotion > > > > [Jordi] I think in the other way around, it facilitates the IPv6 > promotion, as it doesn’t require to be a “big” ISP (200 customers) neither to > have been an IPv4 one before. > > > > * From the current IPv6 allocation criteria, it is unlikely to have > > many cases where criteria. d is being the barrier to receive IPv6 > > space. > > > > [Jordi] Not sure what is criteria d. ? If you mean criteria 4 as in > https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/resources#Part-3:-IPv6-Policy (9.2.2. > 4), I think I’ve responded to that already with my previous responses? > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > ********************************************** > > 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 > > > > > ********************************************** > 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 * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list [email protected] https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
