Dear Colleagues, I am Satoru Tsurumaki from Japan Open Policy Forum Steering Team.
I would like to share key feedback in our community for prop-159,based on a meeting we organised on 28th Aug to discuss these proposals. This feedback is sent on my behalf, but please note that it is a summary of the discussions among the 18 Japanese community members (5 on-site, 13 remote) who attended the meeting. Many oppose opinions were expressed about this proposal. (comment details) - The IP address delegation size should not be changed to decrease APNIC membership fee. - The difference in APNIC annual fee due to the initial delegation size of IPv4 and IPv6 should be corrected. However, the logic for calculating the annual fee should be reviewed instead of reducing the IP address delegation size. Regards, Satoru Tsurumaki JPOPF Steering Team 2024年8月5日(月) 18:03 Bertrand Cherrier via SIG-policy <[email protected]>: > > Dear SIG members, > > A new proposal "prop-159-v001: Reduction of minimum IPv6 allocation size > form /32 to /36" > 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-159 > > Regards, > Bertrand, Shaila, and Anupam > APNIC Policy SIG Chairs > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > prop-159-v001: Reduction of minimum IPv6 allocation size form /32 to /36 > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Proposer: Christopher Munz-Michielin ([email protected]) > > > 1. Problem statement > ------------------------ > > As outlined in secion 8.1 of the "APNIC Internet Number Resource > Policies" - "The minimum allocation size for IPv6 address space is > /32." Correspondingly, in section 8.2.1, accounts with existing V4 > allocations are alos required to take a minimum allocation of a /32 of > IPv6 space - "An account holder that has an IPv4 allocation is eligible > for a /32 IPv6 address block." > > In section 6.1, new LIR accounts (after Februrary, 2019) are only > entitled to receive a maxium allocation of a /23 of IPv4 space - "Since > Thursday, 28 February 2019, each APNIC account holder is only eligible > to receive IPv4 address delegations totalling a maximum /23 from the > APNIC 103/8 IPv4 address pool." > > Based on the way APNIC calculates fees (outlined in the APNIC Member Fee > Schedule, document ref APNIC-120) an LIR formed after 2019 with the > maximum IPv4 allocation size and no IPv6 allocation would end up paying > AUD $1,546. > > If that same LIR was to request an IPv6 allocation and were awarded the > minimum size of a /32, they would end up paying AUD $2025 - a roughly > 30% fee increase. > > > 2. Objective of policy change > -------------------------------- > > By reducing the minimum IPv6 allocation size for LIRs from a /32 to a > /36, an LIR formed after 2019 holding the maximum IPv4 allocation of a > /23 would not be forced to pay increased fees in order to request IPv6. > > > 3. Situation in other regions > ------------------------------ > > - In ARIN the minimum IPv6 allocation size is a /40 > - In RIPE, fees are not charged based on allocation sizes > - AFRINIC instituted a special policy so existing IPv4 resource holders > will not pay additional fees to deploy IPv6 > > 4. Proposed policy solution > ------------------------------ > > I am proposing that section 8.1 be revised to state "The minimum > allocation size for IPv6 address space is /36." > > additionally, I am proposing that section 8.2.1 be revised to state "An > account holder that has an IPv4 allocation is eligible for a /36 IPv6 > address block." > > 5. Advantages / Disadvantages > ---------------------------------- > Advantages: > The advantage is that small LIRs, or LIRs formed after 2019 would not > face 30% higher fees to request an IPv6 allocation. This may spur IPv6 > adoption in the region. > > Disadvantages: > > 6. Impact on resource holders > -------------------------------- > This would not effect any existing resource holders, only LIRs who are > requesting new IPv6 allocations. > > 7. References > -------------- > - ARIN policy: https://www.arin.net/resources/fees/fee_schedule/ > - Afrinic policy: https://afrinic.net/membership/cost#resource > - APNIC fee calculator: > https://www.apnic.net/get-ip/apnic-membership/how-much-does-it-cost/member-fees-calculator/?feeScheduleYear=2024&ipv4=%2F23&ipv6=%2F36&asn=2 > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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]
