[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [sig-policy][prop-016-v002] FINAL CALL FOR COMMENTS
Dear secretariat and all,
It is not factual that a consensus was reached on this policy
proposal, namely "prop-016-v002". So claiming such repeatedly
in no way makes it so.
So I would again ask kindly that honesty be the stalwart in
such policy making processes...
APNIC Secretariat wrote:
> ____________________
>
> Final call for comments: [prop-016-v002]
> "IPv6 allocations to v4 networks"
> ____________________
>
> This is the final call for comments on policy proposal [prop-016-v002]
> "IPv6 allocations to v4 networks"
>
> This proposal was presented at APNIC 17 and consensus was
> reached:
>
> "to update IPv6 policy and allocation procedures to explicitly
> document the consideration given to an existing infrastructure
> and customer base. A modification was accepted that requires
> LIRs to have plan to move some of their customers from IPv4
> to within two years."
>
> This proposal is now submitted to the sig-policy mailing list for an
> eight week discussion period. At the end of that period, if consensus
> appears to have been achieved, the Chair of the Policy SIG will
> ask the Executive Council to endorse the proposal for implementation.
>
> * Send all comments and questions to: <sig-policy@apnic.net>
> * Deadline for comments: 3 May 2004
>
> _____________________________________________________________________
>
> Proposal: IPv6 allocations to organisations with existing IPv4
> infrastructure
> _____________________________________________________________________
>
> Version 2.0
>
> Background
> ----------
>
> The current IPv6 policy allows existing IPv4 infrastructure to be
> considered in requests for IPv6 address space. This is described in
> section 4.4 "Consideration of IPv4 Infrastructure", which states:
>
> "Where an existing IPv4 service provider requests IPv6 space for
> eventual transition of existing services to IPv6, the number of present
> IPv4 customers may be used to justify a larger request than would be
> justified if based solely on the IPv6 infrastructure."
>
> This policy indicates an intention to consider an existing IPv4 network
> in order to justify larger allocations, however it does not sufficiently
> describe how that infrastructure and customer base should be taken into
> account in making an IPv6 allocation. This policy proposal aims to
> address this problem by clarifying the relevant policy and procedures.
>
> Proposal
> --------
>
> The IPv6 policy and allocation procedures should be updated to
> explicitly document the consideration given to an existing
> infrastructure and customer base.
>
> Section 4.4 of the policy should be replaced with the following:
>
> "Where an existing IPv4 service provider requests IPv6 space for
> provision of existing services via IPv6, the existing IPv4
> infrastructure and customer base will be evaluated, and an IPv6
> allocation will be made which is sufficient to allow the network
> to be addressed using IPv6.
>
> Section 5.1.2 should be replaced with the following:
>
> "Organizations that meet the initial allocation criteria are
> eligible to receive a minimum allocation of /32.
>
> "Qualifying organizations may request an initial allocation
> greater than /32 by submitting additional documentation that
> reasonably justifies the request. This may include comprehensive
> documentation of the planned infrastructure; or, in accordance
> with section 4.4, a description of an existing IPv4 network which
> is to receive IPv6 addresses. In either case, an allocation
> will be made which fulfills the calculated address requirement,
> in accordance with the HD-Ratio based utilisation policy."
>
> In evaluating a request under this "existing IPv4 network" provision,
> standard hostmaster request processes will be used to determine the
> total IPv6 addressing requirement of the existing infrastructure and
> customer base. Information may be obtained from previous requests
> and/or database registrations, and additional exchanges as required.
>
> The request and evaluation should apply only to IPv4 infrastructure
> and customers which are intended to receive IPv6 addresses. It is not
> necessary that the LIR commit to a complete transition to IPv6
> at any time, however, LIRs should plan to move some of their
> customers from IPv4 to within two years.
>
> NIR considerations
> ------------------
>
> This policy should be applicable equally to all NIRs in the APNIC
> region.
>
> Implementation
> --------------
>
> This policy should become effective in the APNIC region after approval
> through the APNIC policy process, and reasonable coordination efforts
> involving other RIR regions.
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
>
> APNIC Secretariat <secretariat@apnic.net>
> Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC) Tel: +61-7-3858-3100
> PO Box 2131 Milton, QLD 4064 Australia Fax: +61-7-3858-3199
> Level 1, 33 Park Road, Milton, QLD http://www.apnic.net
> ______________________________________________________________________
>
> * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
> _______________________________________________
> sig-policy mailing list
> sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
Kindest regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Be precise in the use of words and expect precision from others" -
Pierre Abelard
"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Registered Email addr with the USPS
Contact Number: 214-244-4827
