Hi Satoru san,
> As an NIR, JPNIC does not have a tier of associate members, making > it difficult to supporce or opporse from Japanese community members. > Yes, I totally understand, once this policy is accepted by the community then it is upto individual NIRs to decide whether to implement this or not. IMO, this is not in conflict with RIR policy because you don't have an associate membership tier. > > (comment details) > - It may be necessary to sort out the consistency of this proposal > when it becomes a consensus, including other NIRs that similarly > do not have an associate member tier. > I will be happy to discuss this in the NIR SIG session, if NIRs want to provide IPv6 only resources to their members easily then they can come up with their own policies. If the existing policy is supporting that anyway then there is no need to update anything. > - The points of concern in the case of JPNIC are as follows: > - Implementation is difficult because there is no tier of associate > members. > - There may be no need to force the implementation. > I totally agree. > > > Regards, > > Satoru Tsurumaki / JPOPF Steering Team > > 2021年8月13日(金) 8:56 Bertrand Cherrier <b.cherr...@micrologic.nc>: > >> Dear SIG members, >> >> The proposal "prop-137-v001: IPv6 assignment for associate members" >> has been sent to the Policy SIG for review. >> >> It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting (OPM) at APNIC 52 >> on Thursday, 16 September 2021. >> >> https://conference.apnic.net/52/program/schedule/#/day/4 >> >> 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 and also available at: >> >> http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-137 >> >> Regards, >> Bertrand and Ching-Heng >> APNIC Policy SIG Chairs >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------- >> >> prop-137-v001: IPv6 assignment for associate members >> >> ------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Proposer: Aftab Siddiqui (aftab.siddi...@gmail.com) >> >> >> 1. Problem statement >> -------------------- >> The first tier of membership in APNIC is "Associate". As per APNIC-121 >> Section 2.1 and 2.2, the Associate members do not receive any address >> space (IPv4 or IPv6). In order to be eligible for IPv6 assignment APNIC >> Members that have been delegated an IPv4 address block from APNIC, but >> have no IPv6 space, instantly qualify for an appropriately sized IPv6 >> block without any restriction. If you have no IPv4 delegation and only >> requesting IPv6 assignment then as per APNIC-127 section 10.1.4 >> "Requests for Provider Independent assignments must include a detailed >> plan of intended usage of the proposed address block over at least the >> 12 months following the allocation". The minimum size of the assignment >> is a /48 and requires annual fees of AUD 1,180 as per HD ratio. >> >> In the IPv4 exhaustion world, this policy limits anyone who wants to >> only use IPv6 provider independent assignment for personal use as it >> doesn't incentivise IPv6 assignment only. The same fees and >> justification is applied to receive /24 IPv4 + /48 IPv6 address space. >> >> This is perceived as a clear barrier to deploy IPv6. This policy >> proposal addresses that barrier aims to solve this problem by means of >> providing a Provider Independent assignment to Associate members. >> >> >> 2. Objective of policy change >> ----------------------------- >> Provide an incentive to small enterprises and academia/researchers to >> receive IPv6 assignment. >> >> >> 3. Situation in other regions >> ----------------------------- >> RIPE NCC: IPv6 PI can be sponsored by an LIR (EUR 50/yr) >> ARIN: As an end-user IPv6 only can be requested following certain criteria >> AFRINIC: Must not be an LIR >> LACNIC: Not been an LIR or ISP, submit addressing plans for at least a >> year >> >> >> https://www.nro.net/wp-content/uploads/RIR-Comparative-Policy-Overview-2021-Q2.pdf >> >> >> Section 3.4.3 - END USERS >> >> >> 4. Proposed policy solution >> --------------------------- >> Remove APNIC-114 "APNIC guidelines for IPv6 allocation and assignment >> requests" requirement for initial IPv6 provider independent assignment >> as per APNIC-127 Section 10.1.4. >> >> Use the same "Go IPv6" criteria and enable "Get IPv6 Addresses Now" >> options for Associate members with the restrictions that the Provider >> Independent assignment cannot be further assigned to other organisations. >> >> The Associate member MUST agree to use and announce the IPv6 provider >> independent address space within twelve (12) months. After that period, >> if not announced or APNIC host masters believe that it is not in use >> then the assigned IPv6 address space should be reclaimed and returned to >> the free pool. >> >> Note: This is outside the scope of the policy proposal, therefore >> requesting APNIC EC to consider that only Associate membership fees >> should be applied to initial IPv6 provider independent assignment of /48 >> only. >> >> >> 5. Advantages / Disadvantages >> ----------------------------- >> Advantages: >> This will give incentive to those small enterprises and academics >> willing to use their own IPv6 addresses but not in a position to be a >> very small tier member. >> >> Disadvantages: >> - This might slightly increase over head for host masters. >> - The possible effect of this proposal is the growth of the global >> routing table >> >> >> 6. Impact on resource holders >> ----------------------------- >> No impact on existing resource holders. >> >> >> 7. References >> ------------- >> None. >> * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy >> * >> _______________________________________________ >> sig-policy mailing list >> sig-policy@lists.apnic.net >> https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy > > > > -- > -- > Satoru Tsurumaki > BBIX, Inc > > * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy > * > _______________________________________________ > sig-policy mailing list > sig-policy@lists.apnic.net > https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
