Hi David, Thank you for your thoughtful comments on the proposal. I understand your concerns about the criteria for larger IPv6 allocations and the emphasis on network-related justification rather than IPv4 holdings or fee structures.
However, I would like to highlight the situation faced by members from less developed countries where the implementation of IPv6 is truly necessary. Many of these new members may not be aware that they are eligible for a larger IPv6 block based on their circumstances. The explicit inclusion of this information in the policy is crucial because, without it, these members might not realize they qualify for more substantial resources. While I agree that a detailed network justification is necessary, it's important to ensure that members understand their eligibility for larger blocks. *The document you mentioned outlines the requirements for a /23 IPv4 assignment. If a member meets these requirements of a /23, they are simultaneously eligible for a larger IPv6 block.* However, due to the lack of clear guidance in the policy, some members may continue to use IPv6 in a suboptimal way, such as in multi-homing scenarios, because they don't have sufficient IPv6 space. Ensuring that the policy is clear and accessible can help these members better utilize IPv6, supporting broader adoption and more efficient network operations. *With Regards,* *Rafeeun Noby Babir* On Tue, Aug 6, 2024 at 3:56 AM David Farmer via SIG-policy < [email protected]> wrote: > I do not support this policy as written. Yes, it should be relatively easy > for organizations to request initial allocations larger than /48. However, > the justification for this should be based on information about their > network, like the number of sites it has, from the ARIN policy. It should > not be based on their IPv4 holdings. And it should most definitely not be > based on the fee structure. It is logical to align block sizes with the fee > structure. However, the fee structure should not be the basis for the > justification of a larger block. > > Thanks. > > On Mon, Aug 5, 2024 at 4:03 AM Bertrand Cherrier via SIG-policy < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Dear SIG members, >> >> A new proposal "prop-160-v001: Change IPv6 Initial assignment to /44 for >> Organizations Eligible for /23 IPv4" >> 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-160 >> >> Regards, >> Bertrand, Shaila, and Anupam >> APNIC Policy SIG Chairs >> >> >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> prop-160-v001: Change IPv6 Initial assignment to /44 for Organizations >> Eligible for /23 IPv4 >> >> >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Proposer: Md. Rafeeun Noby Babir ([email protected]) >> >> >> 1. Problem Statement >> ------------------------ >> The current minimum allocation for Initial IPv6 assignments is a /48 >> prefix. While this provides a significant pool of addresses, it can >> create challenges for organizations implementing multihoming and >> managing multiple sites, particularly for those that are new to IPv6. >> >> Organizations that qualify for a /23 IPv4 allocation have demonstrably >> justified a requirement for more than a single /48 IPv6 address pool. >> >> A /48 prefix can be cumbersome to subnet efficiently for deployments >> across various locations or with multiple internet service providers >> (ISPs) in a multihomed environment. This can discourage organizations, >> especially new adopters of IPv6, from transitioning due to concerns >> about address space management complexity. >> >> 2. Objective of policy change >> -------------------------------- >> This proposal advocates for changing the initial allocation of IPv6 >> address blocks to /44 from /48 for organizations that are eligible for a >> /23 IPv4 allocation under the current APNIC policies. >> This proposal aims to achieve greater alignment between IPv6 allocations >> and IPv4 delegations [5]. >> As per the APNIC Fee Schedule, no additional fee [3] would be required >> for this increased allocation. >> >> 3. Situation in other regions >> ------------------------------- >> ARIN: Similar policy has been adopted (6.5.8.2. Initial Assignment >> Size) [2]. More than 1 but less than or equal to 12 sites justified, >> receives a /44 assignment. >> >> >> 4. Proposed Policy Change >> ----------------------------- >> Current Policy text : >> >> 8.2. Initial IPv6 allocations [1] >> 8.2.1. Account holders with existing IPv4 space >> Subject to Section 8.1., existing IPv4 address space may be considered >> in determining the initial IPv6 allocation size. APNIC applies a minimum >> size for IPv6 allocations to facilitate prefix-based filtering. >> APNIC account holders that have been delegated an IPv4 address block >> from APNIC, but have no IPv6 space, can qualify for an appropriately >> sized IPv6 block under the matching IPv6 policy. For example, an account >> holder that has received an IPv4 IXP assignment will be eligible to >> receive an IPv6 IXP assignment. >> The size of the IPv6 delegation for requestors that meet this criterion >> will be based on the following: >> * An account holder that has an IPv4 allocation is eligible for a /32 >> IPv6 address block. >> * An account holder that has an IPv4 assignment is eligible for a /48 >> IPv6 address block. >> If an APNIC account holder wishes to receive an initial allocation or >> assignment larger than the sizes described above, the account holder >> will need to apply under the alternative criteria described in Section >> 8.2.2. and Section 9.1 below. >> >> >> Policy text will be changed : >> * An account holder that has a /24 IPv4 assignment is eligible for a /48 >> IPv6 address block. >> New Policy text will be added : >> * An account holder that has a /23 IPv4 assignment is eligible for a /44 >> IPv6 address block. >> >> >> 5. Advantages / Disadvantages >> ---------------------------------- >> Advantages: >> Alignment with IPv4 Allocation: Organizations qualifying for a /23 IPv4 >> allocation have demonstrably justified a need for a larger address pool. >> Aligning the minimum IPv6 allocation with this level reflects similar >> requirements in a larger IPv6 address space. >> Improved Efficiency for Multihoming and Multi-site Deployments: A /44 >> prefix offers greater flexibility for organizations to subnet and manage >> their address space effectively across multiple locations or ISPs in a >> multihomed environment. >> Encouraging IPv6 Adoption: Increasing the minimum allocation cost (in >> terms of address space size) can incentivize new organizations to adopt >> IPv6, accelerating the overall transition within the region. >> >> Disadvantages: >> >> 6. Impact on resource holders >> -------------------------------- >> >> 7. References >> -------------- >> [1] Section 8.2 Initial IPv6 allocations. >> https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/resources#a_h_8_2 >> >> [2] IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policies for the ARIN Region >> https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/nrpm/nrpm.txt >> >> [3] APNIC Fee Calculation >> >> https://www.apnic.net/about-apnic/corporate-documents/documents/membership/member-fee-schedule/ >> >> [4] New Member fee examples >> https://www.apnic.net/get-ip/get-ip-addresses-asn/ >> >> [5] Section 6.1. Minimum and maximum IPv4 delegations >> https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/resources#a_h_6_1 >> _______________________________________________ >> SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/[email protected]/ >> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >> > > > -- > =============================================== > David Farmer 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] --
_______________________________________________ SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/[email protected]/ To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
