This is very sage advice, as one would expect from Mr. Paul Wilson. đź‘Ť I agree. Under current policies, most organizations will have an additional /64 available with plenty of identifiers for such a use case; even organizations receiving assignments from an ISP will likely have an extra /64 available. However, non-connected devices should never be the primary basis for justifying an RIR allocation. But as an ancillary use case of an additional /64, once an allocation has been justified through connected devices, sure. Furthermore, current policies cover connected IoT devices just fine.
Thank you. On Mon, Aug 19, 2024 at 10:06 AM Paul Wilson <[email protected]> wrote: > 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] -- =============================================== 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]
