HiI don't get why Internet of Things needs to have an special allocation in the policy. Any allocation made to an organization being it an ISP or an End-User can be used to connect IoT devices without any issues. If the requester usage is to connect IoT devices that is a normal and valid justification among several others.
I don't get either the part of the text that says "allocating IPv6 addresses to non-electronic items". As far as I understand numbering resources can only be allocated to organizations and they will assign for usage for their or their customer devices as needed.
The IPv6 address used by any IoT device will always depend on the company that owns the device and where it is connected. If the company has an previous allocation it can use freely on their own devices, but if the device changes connectivity or ownership it may not be able to keep that IPv6 address.
Also I can't see the link between a /32 and the amount of IP addresses that can be potentially used by IoT devices. Normally hundreds or thousands of these devices can exists within the very same /64, and even in a more exotic scenario a /64 per device most allocations can supply it without any concerning or shortages.
Therefore I oppose this proposal as I don't see anything that can't be done with the current policies.
Regards Fernando On 05/08/2024 06:09, Bertrand Cherrier via SIG-policy wrote:
Dear SIG members, A new proposal "prop-161-v001: Using IPv6 for Internet of Things (IoT)" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review. It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting (OPM) at APNIC 58 on Friday, 6 September 2024. https://conference.apnic.net/58/program/program/index.html#/day/8/ We invite you to review and comment on the proposal on the mailing list before the OPM. The comment period on the mailing list before the OPM is an important part of the Policy Development Process (PDP). 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 appended below as well as available at: http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-161 Regards, Bertrand, Shaila, and Anupam APNIC Policy SIG Chairs ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- prop-161-v001: Using IPv6 for Internet of Things (IoT) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Proposers: Guangliang Pan (Benny) [email protected] Wei Wong (Wesley) [email protected] Qiang Li [email protected] Yaling Tan [email protected] 1. Problem statement ----------------------- Internet of Things (loT) is part of the future Internet. However, there is no clear IPv6 policy for IoT in APNIC’s current policy environment. In some of the cases, the IoT industry needs to assign IPv6 to electronic smart devices as well as non-electronic items. The non-electronic items include company products and assets. IPv6 addresses will be used as universally compatible identifiers for these non-electronic items for the purpose of identification, verification, and tracing. It is a bit difficult for APNIC Hostmasters to evaluate such IPv6 requests without a clear policy to allow allocating IPv6 addresses to non-electronic items. This policy proposal aims to address this issue and meet the needs from the IoT industry. 2. Objective of policy change ------------------------------- Add clear clauses about how IPv6 can be allocated to Internet of Things in IPv6 policy. 3. Situation in other regions ------------------------------ There are some discussions about “Need IPv6 in IoT” in other regions. RIPE NCC has an “Internet of Things Working Group”. 4. Proposed policy solution ------------------------------ 1. Add a new clause in IPv6 policy. 8.2.3 Using IPv6 for Internet of Things (IoT) IPv6 addresses can be allocated to IoT Objects which include electrical devices and non-electrical items. A default initial IPv6 allocation size for IoT is a /32. 2. Add the following sentence at the end of 8.3.4. Size of subsequent allocation An IoT Object will be counted as a normal single host while evaluating subsequent allocation size for IoT services according to the IPv6 policy. 5. Advantages / Disadvantages --------------------------------- Advantages: IPv6 has huge number of IP addresses and IoT needs huge number of IP addresses. It is a perfect match connects APNIC community with the IoT industry. Encourage using IPv6 for IoT will help IPv6 deployment in future Internet. Disadvantages: None Not to worry about run out of IPv6. The original design of IPv6 was for Internet of Things. You often hear IPv6 can be assigned to every single sand in the world :) We can trust APNIC Hostmasters will do the evaluation properly. 6. Impact on resource holders -------------------------------- No impacts to the current resource holders in the APNIC region. 7. References -------------- _______________________________________________ SIG-policy -https://mailman.apnic.net/[email protected]/ To unsubscribe send an email [email protected]
_______________________________________________ SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/[email protected]/ To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
