Why does justifying a /23 of IPv4 or 512 IPv4 addresses justify a /44 of IPv6? This proposal states it as a fact. Could you explain why this is the case?
Thanks On Mon, Aug 19, 2024 at 1:43 AM Rafeeun Noby Babir <[email protected]> wrote: > 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] > > > > -- > > > > > > -- =============================================== 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]
