Hello everyone,
I'm planning to submit a policy proposal for presentation at APNIC 60 in Da
Nang, and I would like to seek community feedback on the idea before I draft
and submit a proposal for discussion.
The proposal will be based on allowing for longer IPv6 allocations (not to be
confused with assignments), to allow for sub-assignments to be made from
allocations longer than a /32. Through some offline discussions I've had with a
few members, they are either unable to create sub-assignments for internal
purposes or because they have an assignment longer than a /32, they cannot
assign (for example) a /48 to one of their customers. If they wish to
sub-assign resources and update Whois records, they must request a /32, which
may be far more significant than what they may need.
To use ARIN's Number Resource Policy Manual as a reference point, their policy
allows an LIR to make a request for a /36 (4096 x /48) or /40 (256 x /48)
allocation to be made. In any case all allocations shall be made on nibble
boundaries, and this is to allow for sparse assignments to be made under the
Sparse Delegation Framework.
The proposal I'm planning to submit will be along the lines of:
Allowing for IPv6 allocations longer than a /32 to be made provided that it is
made on a nibble boundary (/36, /40 or /44).
For a member to be eligible to receive a /40 or /44 IPv6 allocation, they must
be holding no shorter than a /24 IPv4 allocation.
For a member to be eligible to receive a /36 IPv6 allocation, they must be
holding no shorter than a /23 IPv4 allocation.
The identified issues that this proposal will attempt to address are:
Allow members to make sub-assignments for internal network use (i.e. different
areas and divisions within the same member organisation), allowing them to
maintain more accurate Whois records (e.g. if a member has a /36, they may
update Whois records to reflect that a /40 is being used for their core
network, another /40 for customer services, an additional /40 for their
corporate network, and so on).
Allows members to make sub-assignments to their customers and maintain accurate
Whois records.
I'd be interested to hear from any members (either on-list or off-list) about
any similar issues that they've experienced, their views and opinions on the
idea and anything they feel should or should not be included. I do acknowledge
Prop-159 was somewhat similar in nature however it appeared to be solely
focused on reducing the fees payable. I am raising this idea based on an issue
I'm facing myself with the assigned IPv6 resources that have been delegated to
me and thought that I'm not the only member who is experiencing this.
Regards,Christopher Hawker
_______________________________________________
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/[email protected]/
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
