Dear Christopher, Thank you so much for your thoughtful review and valuable comments on prop-165, and I apologize that this email is not a reply to the original email, and in a separate thread.
Please see our responses inline below. On 31 Jul 2025, at 10:59 am, Christopher Hawker wrote: >Is the intent of this proposal to introduce a new request criterion under 6.2 >IPv4 Request Criteria of APNIC-127 Internet Number Resource Policies? >… Is there a reason why a new criterion needs to be introduced as opposed to a >member applying for space as an LIR or for multihoming (which both would allow >for the use of the space for transitioning to IPv6-only)? Under section 6.2, in order to justify an IPv4 request, applicants must meet requirements that assume the existence of an IPv4 network (for example, demonstrating need for a /24 in an IPv4 context). However, for organizations that intend to deploy a new IPv6-only network, it will be very difficult to meet the IPv4-specific requirements of section 6.2.1. For example, they may be able to satisfy section 8.2.2, but not section 6.2. Therefore, we believe a new criterion is needed. >Under the Proposed Policy Solution: >Please correct me if I’m wrong, my understanding of Provider Aggregatable >space is that PA space is delegated from an LIR to an ISP. Where it reads that >organisations qualifying for v6 PA allocations can apply for /24 v4 space, how >will applicants demonstrate that they have received PA space from an LIR? The intent is not to cover organisations under an existing LIR, but rather those who will newly become an LIR themselves. We will clarify this point in the next version. >Following on from the above, what will happen to the v4 address space >delegated to the member if they return their v6 PA space to their LIR? In such cases, the IPv4 space must also be returned. We will add this clarification in the next version of the proposal. >How will the Secretariat monitor the delegated address space to ensure >compliance? Compliance monitoring would be handled in the same manner as with other existing policy requirements. If the Secretariat identifies non-compliance, it would request the return of the space, consistent with current practice. > The point “Additional usage restrictions apply in accordance with current > APNIC policies” is extremely vague and needs to be clarified. Our intention was to indicate that the same requirements apply as in other policies. However, we agree this wording is unnecessary and will remove it in the next version. >I would make a recommendation, that address space delegated under this >proposal is returned to APNIC when the member is able to successfully and >completely transition to IPv6-only, and that it cannot be transferred to >another member. Thank you for this useful recommendation. We agree and will explicitly include this condition in the next version of the proposal. We greatly appreciate your detailed feedback, which will help us improve the clarity and robustness of the proposal. We plan to publish the revised version before the next SIG meeting. Best regards, Tomohiro Fujisaki and Hiroki Kawabata _______________________________________________ SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/[email protected]/ To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
