If I may offer some suggestions here, in my personal capacity:
Realistically, it seems close to impossible that the APNIC community
will agree that blocks of IPv6 should be allocated by APNIC for the
purpose of further assignment to objects that are incapable of acting as
IPv6 devices.
However, that agreement may not be necessary. The holder of a /32
allocated under current policies can use that space legitimately, while
also having plenty of spare /64s. And each of those /64 prefixes bears
enough /128 addresses to identify 2^64 (18 billion billion) objects.
Perhaps the authors might consider that if an existing IPv6 holder wants
to implement their scheme, they could simply take a single /64 from
their IPv6 space and use it as proposed. That could even be the same
/64 which is assigned to the server of information about the objects
identified within the prefix (an implementation detail which is probably
beyond the scope of this discussion).
If this approach were taken, then the appropriate place to document it
would be in a proposed IETF Informational RFC, or even a BCP. If the
IETF were to publish that RFC, then that might tend to leitimise the
practice for the sake of any ongoing RIR discussions (if those were
needed at all).
As for APNIC 58, perhaps the authors would propose this as an
informational presentation to the IPv6 SIG, rather than trying to bring
it as a policy proposal which seems destined (I’m sorry to say) to
fail.
I hope this is helpful.
Paul.
On 18 Aug 2024, at 23:55, Bertrand Cherrier via SIG-policy wrote:
Dear SIG members,
A new version of the proposal "prop-161-v002: Using IPv6 for Internet
of
Things (IoT)" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.
Information about earlier versions is available from:
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-161
You are encouraged to express your views on the proposal:
- Do you support or oppose the proposal?
- Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear?
- What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more
effective?
Please find the text of the proposal below.
Regards,
Bertrand, Shaila, and Anupam
APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
prop-161-v002: Using IPv6 for Internet of Things (IoT)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposer:
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.
If a company doesn’t have IPv4, not a LIR, it is difficult for them
to
request IPv6 allocation for IoT services.
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 to host information of non-electronic items on the
Internet
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.
This policy proposal aims to improve the IPv6 allocation policy to
address the requirements from the IoT industry.
2. Objective of policy change
----------------------------------
Add a clear clause 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
--------------------------------
Add a new clause in IPv6 policy.
8.2.3 Using IPv6 for Internet of Things (IoT)
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. Initial IPv6 allocation size for IoT will be set to the
minimum IPv6 allocation size at the time of allocation.
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. We will create a real Internet of everything based on
IPv6.
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.
More new members joining APNIC from the IoT industry will help to
reduce
the APNIC membership fee.
7. References
----------------
_______________________________________________
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]
