Hello,
Problem Statement

“If a company doesn’t have IPv4, not a LIR, it is difficult for them to request 
IPv6 allocation for IoT services.”

This isn't correct - if a company has a justifiable need for IP address space, 
can demonstrate how the space will be used and the usage is compliant with all 
relevant policies, they can apply for IP space.

“IPv6 addresses will be used to host information of non-electronic items on the 
Internet”

If the intent is to use IP address space to provide accessibility to a website 
(or number of websites) then this is already an acceptable use-case under 
current policy. If an IP address is being used on a web server which shows 
information about a unique item and the IP address is being used to identify 
this item offline, the usage of the IP address to identify the item offline is 
irrelevant to a resource application. The justifiable use-case would be to 
serve web content.

““In some of the cases, the IoT industry needs to assign IPv6 to ... 
non-electronic items.””

As has been explained during discussions on v001, this is not a justifiable 
use-case for a plethora of reasons.

“It is a bit difficult for APNIC Hostmasters to evaluate such IPv6 requests 
without a clear policy.”

Yes, there's no policy that permits the usage of IPv6 address space to identify 
non-electronic items and for good reason, being that this isn't what IPv6 
address space is designed for. If on the other hand the need for IPv6 space is 
to serve content over the Internet from a web server (or number thereof) then 
this is the justifiable use-case for the IP space.
Proposed policy solution

“IPv6 addresses can be allocated to Internet of Things for electronic smart 
devices and/or for hosting information of non-electronic items on the Internet.”

I note that your proposed policy solution is for the addition of 8.2.3, which 
falls under Initial IPv6 Allocations. The definition of "Allocated address 
space" as per 2.1.2 of APNIC-127 APNIC Internet Number Resource Policies is 
that it is distributed to internet registries or account holders for the 
purpose of subsequent distribution to its customers. The use-case you've 
described (it if were accepted by the community) would in my opinion be 
regarded as an assignment "for exclusive use within the Internet infrastructure 
they operate" (see 
https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/resources#a_h_2_2_3<https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/resources>).
The justification of using IPv6 addresses which you've described would fall 
under "Virtual web hosting" as defined in section 9 of "APNIC-105 APNIC 
guidelines for IPv4 allocation and assignment requests".
After reviewing section 9.0 of APNIC-127 titled IPv6 Assignments, it lists the 
4 criteria under which assignments may be made. The justification for which 
your proposing IPv6 resources may be assigned to LIRs would, in my opinion, be 
better suited for inclusion in the guidelines for allocation and assignment 
requests (document reference APNIC-114) and not a policy document.
Advantages / Disadvantages

“IPv6 has huge number of IP addresses and IoT needs huge number of IP 
addresses.”

While there is a substantial amount of IPv6 address space, this does not mean 
that we need to assign overly large blocks of IP space.

“Not to worry about run out of IPv6.”

The same was said about IPv4 decades ago. Look at where we are now.

“The original design of IPv6 was for Internet of Things.”

My understanding is that the original design for IPv6 was to provide a pathway 
to resolving the issue with the finite amount of IPv4 address space.
Impact on resource holders

“More new members joining APNIC from the IoT industry will help to reduce the 
APNIC membership fee.”

How was the idea deduced that the more members APNIC has, the lower member fees 
get?
Conclusion: I do not support and I oppose this proposal because the 
justification of "IPv6 addresses [being] used to host information of 
non-electronic items on the Internet" the authors are proposing is already set 
out in APNIC's guidelines. This proposal is a duplicate of justification 
already acceptable and is not necessary, among other reasons already laid out 
by other community members.
Regards,
Christopher Hawker

_______________________________________________
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/[email protected]/
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]

Reply via email to