Hi David and Andri,
If I understand the proposal correctly, the idea is to provide IPv6 space to applicants when receiving IPv4, and require them to dual-stack when deploying a network, yes?
A few things I'd like to get clarification on:
- If a new member were to apply for a /24 or /23 IPv4 prefix they could apply at the same time for up to a /34 or /33 IPv6 prefix (respectively) without affecting the membership fee. What size delegation do you propose if someone applies for a /24 or /23 IPv4 prefix respectively, or would this be left to the discretion of APNIC to determine?
- Looking at the policy solution, I see that it refers to both APNIC and NIR members. To my knowledge, NIRs have their own set of policies they implement provided they don't directly conflict with APNIC's policies. How would this apply to resource applications from organisations to NIRs?
- If a member receives a IPv6 delegation alongside an IPv4 delegation and they do not deploy IPv6 within the timeframe allotted, do they lose the right to the IPv4 space as well?
- Is this designed to be retrospectively applied to existing members that only hold IPv4 address space, or only applications from new members?
- If this is not retrospectively applied and a new member operates a stub network that uses an upstream which has not adopted IPv6, will the new member be considered as failing to adopt IPv6?
I don't believe that this policy will change the pricing scheme, because if a member applies for (as an example) a /24 v4 prefix they can receive up to a /34 v6 prefix with no change in the member fee they pay (see #1 above).
I like the idea and support the concept, I just believe it needs a bit of clarification and completeness before it is adopted (should it reach consensus).
Regards,
Christopher Hawker
_______________________________________________ SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/[email protected]/ To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
