I believe Christopher raised a real issue related to some new members try to reduce their fee but still want to receive IPv6 allocation.
I agree with Fernando and David on the solutions to fix this problem: either ask the APNIC EC to adjust fee schedule or allow new members have options to select smaller allocation block. We might need some changes to the policy text regarding "default IPv6 initial allocation size" and "minimum IPv6 allocation size". Thanks, Guangliang ========= ________________________________ From: David Farmer via SIG-policy <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, 6 August 2024 3:44 AM To: Fernando Frediani <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: [sig-policy] Re: prop-159-v001: Reduction of minimum IPv6 allocation size form /32 to /36 I agree the default IPv6 initial allocation size should not be reduced and should remain at /32. However, in the ARIN region, we allow an LIR to optionally request a smaller initial allocation of /36 and, in limited cases, a /40 to accommodate organizations that wish to remain on lower fee schedule options they otherwise qualify for. They may, at any time, without additional justification, revert back to a /32; obviously, the higher fees would apply. They may not go back and forth, but once they revert to /32, they must remain there. There was a one-time accommodation for organizations that received /32 allocations prior to the implementation of the policy to reduce their allocation if they chose to. This has worked well within the ARIN region, allowing some LIRs to rationalize their fees while still allowing any LIR that wants the default /32 to receive it like they always could. Similar policy changes in the APNIC region might be reasonable, but simply changing the initial allocation size to /36 is not a good idea. Thanks On Mon, Aug 5, 2024 at 12:06 PM Fernando Frediani <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hello Why is it necessary to reduce the minimum IPv6 allocation size from /32 to /36 ? What is the issue this is causing ? /32 is a pretty standard and widely size used worldwide for several scenarios, specially for ISP usage and mentioned on BCPs as well. Since there is no shortage of IPv6 and /32 has been a pretty reasonable size for either small and medium size organizations that allocation can continue independently from the size of the requestor, specially if it is an ISP. It allows for better long term planning and to less possibility of desegregation of the IPv6 routing table. For an End-User organization it may make some sense to have smaller allocation, but definitely not for ISPs in general. A IPv6 allocation doesn't necessarily need to be tighten to the size of IPv4 allocations. Since IPv4 exhaustion it is not even more like that. If this reduction proposal from /32 to /36 is being made to deal with the 30% increase for organizations that have IPv4 and request IPv6 what needs fixing is the charging scheme by APNIC and not the allocation policy. Creating artificial artificial shortage to deal with the current fee scheme is not the smartest way to deal with the issue. LACNIC had a similar problem and its Board has dealt with it temporarily within their powers until General Assembly can change it permanently, so APCNIC EC could also think of fee scheme adjustments that don't create restrictions for IPv6 deployment and also doesn't make it more complex by creating a artificial shortage for a resource that is not scarce. As such I oppose this proposal. Best regards Fernando On 05/08/2024 06:02, Bertrand Cherrier via SIG-policy wrote: Dear SIG members, A new proposal "prop-159-v001: Reduction of minimum IPv6 allocation size form /32 to /36" 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-159 Regards, Bertrand, Shaila, and Anupam APNIC Policy SIG Chairs ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- prop-159-v001: Reduction of minimum IPv6 allocation size form /32 to /36 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Proposer: Christopher Munz-Michielin ([email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>) 1. Problem statement ------------------------ As outlined in secion 8.1 of the "APNIC Internet Number Resource Policies" - "The minimum allocation size for IPv6 address space is /32." Correspondingly, in section 8.2.1, accounts with existing V4 allocations are alos required to take a minimum allocation of a /32 of IPv6 space - "An account holder that has an IPv4 allocation is eligible for a /32 IPv6 address block." In section 6.1, new LIR accounts (after Februrary, 2019) are only entitled to receive a maxium allocation of a /23 of IPv4 space - "Since Thursday, 28 February 2019, each APNIC account holder is only eligible to receive IPv4 address delegations totalling a maximum /23 from the APNIC 103/8 IPv4 address pool." Based on the way APNIC calculates fees (outlined in the APNIC Member Fee Schedule, document ref APNIC-120) an LIR formed after 2019 with the maximum IPv4 allocation size and no IPv6 allocation would end up paying AUD $1,546. If that same LIR was to request an IPv6 allocation and were awarded the minimum size of a /32, they would end up paying AUD $2025 - a roughly 30% fee increase. 2. Objective of policy change -------------------------------- By reducing the minimum IPv6 allocation size for LIRs from a /32 to a /36, an LIR formed after 2019 holding the maximum IPv4 allocation of a /23 would not be forced to pay increased fees in order to request IPv6. 3. Situation in other regions ------------------------------ - In ARIN the minimum IPv6 allocation size is a /40 - In RIPE, fees are not charged based on allocation sizes - AFRINIC instituted a special policy so existing IPv4 resource holders will not pay additional fees to deploy IPv6 4. Proposed policy solution ------------------------------ I am proposing that section 8.1 be revised to state "The minimum allocation size for IPv6 address space is /36." additionally, I am proposing that section 8.2.1 be revised to state "An account holder that has an IPv4 allocation is eligible for a /36 IPv6 address block." 5. Advantages / Disadvantages ---------------------------------- Advantages: The advantage is that small LIRs, or LIRs formed after 2019 would not face 30% higher fees to request an IPv6 allocation. This may spur IPv6 adoption in the region. Disadvantages: 6. Impact on resource holders -------------------------------- This would not effect any existing resource holders, only LIRs who are requesting new IPv6 allocations. 7. References -------------- - ARIN policy: https://www.arin.net/resources/fees/fee_schedule/ - Afrinic policy: https://afrinic.net/membership/cost#resource - APNIC fee calculator: https://www.apnic.net/get-ip/apnic-membership/how-much-does-it-cost/member-fees-calculator/?feeScheduleYear=2024&ipv4=%2F23&ipv6=%2F36&asn=2 _______________________________________________ SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/[email protected]/ To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> _______________________________________________ SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/[email protected]/ To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> -- =============================================== David Farmer Email:[email protected]<mailto:email%[email protected]> Networking & Telecommunication Services Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952 ===============================================
_______________________________________________ SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/[email protected]/ To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
