[address-policy-wg] IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)"

Hi all,

See my inputs below in-line.

Besides this, I think we are realizing that a change in the policy is needed.

My understanding is that the current policy was developed in much different circumstances, including the main one, that at that time was not "so clear" IPv6 will be deployed, at least not in a short time, and this is clearly happening now and fast.

Actually, one of the motivations for http://www.ripe.net/ipv6/ipv6-support-20040512.html  was "Encouraging the participation of all those who are interested in the IPv6 policy development process". I guess there are more and more communities with IPv6 deployment experience, and unfortunately they are not all participating in the policy process. On the other way around also, not all the LIRs/ISPs have IPv6 experience, and may be this is one of the hurdles for the deployment take up, they could actually believe is much more difficult that the reality.

Actually I know for ISPs that just don't consider even asking RIPE about an allocation, because their reading of the policy is like "you are really going to deploy IPv6 and ensure to have 200 customers soon".

My feeling is that we need to facilitate the IPv6 deployment. Some of my thoughts:
1) Do we really want to keep the "intend" to provide 200 /48 (or an equivalent distribution) in two years ? May be we can extend this period to 5 years ?
2) Is 200 /48 appropriate ? I know about ISPs with LESS customers than that. May be is time to think in that today the point must be to just have interest in using IPv6 some time, even when no concrete users are asking for it. If the ISP want to make some experiments, is ridiculous to me asking them to go for an experimental allocation, then once they finish the experiment, to move for the real allocation. The experimental allocations must be for "experimental" things, not just for "not sure if I'm going to deploy IPv6, let me try".
3) The policy should not be different than in the case of IPv6 regarding own structure, others, or any mix of both. I think just using IPv6 should provide the right for an allocation.
4) I will go even further: Why not provide IPv6 allocations by default to all the IPv4 ISPs, unless they clearly state they aren't going to use it ?
5) And even much further, should be mandatory for the ISPs, in a time frame of for example 5 years, to provide IPv6 services IF they want to keep their IPv4 allocations ?

Regards,
Jordi


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Laura Cobley" <laura at ripe.net>
To: <address-policy-wg at ripe.net>
Sent: Monday, June 14, 2004 10:36 AM
Subject: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)"


> Dear Colleagues,
> 
> We have received many comments that the text of the current IPv6
> Allocation and Assignment Policy document can be difficult to read and
> understand. Some of these difficulties were presented at RIPE 48 by Leo
> Vegoda:
> 
> http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-48/presentations/ripe48-ap-ipv6-policy.pdf
> 
> During the following discussions, the RIPE NCC was asked to co-ordinate
> work on clarifying the text. Please note that we do not intend to
> propose any policy changes.
> 
> In order to assist with rewriting the IPv6 Policy document, we would
> like to have some input from the community on the issues needing
> clarification. We will send each issue for discussion in a separate
> mail.
> 
> This is the first of these mails.
> 
> 
> Below is an excerpt from the IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment
> Policy:
> 
>     5.1.1. Initial allocation criteria "d)"
> 
>     "To qualify for an initial allocation of IPv6 address space, an
>     organisation must [...] have a plan for making at least 200 /48
>     assignments to other organisations within two years."
> 
> 
>  1. According to this criterion, LIRs who are operators planning to only
>     make /64 assignments appear not to qualify. Was this the community's
>     intention?
> 
> 
>  2. There are a number of interpretations of requirement "d)":
> 
> 
>     - NUMBER OF ASSIGNMENTS
> 
>         -- The LIR has to have a plan to make at least 200 separate /48
>            assignments. Possible scenario: LIR must make 200 assignments
>            and the size of each must be a /48.
> 
>         -- The LIR has to have a plan to make at least the equivalent of
>            200 /48 assignments. Possible scenario: LIR can assign one
>            /41 and seventy-two /48s.
> 
>     Which interpretation was intended regarding the number of
>     assignments?

I think the intend was 200 /48 or anything more or less equivalent.

> 
> 
>     - RECIPIENT OF ASSIGNMENTS
> 
>         -- The LIR has to have a plan to make these 200 assignments to
>            200 separate organisations (regardless of which
>            organisation). Possible scenario: LIR can make 1 assignment
>            to its own organisation and 199 assignments to 199
>            "different" organisations.
> 
>         -- The LIR has to have a plan to make these 200 assignments to
>            200 separate organisations outside of its own infrastructure.
>            Possible scenario: LIR must make 200 assignments to 200
>            "different" organisations. Assignments to its own
>            organisation will not be counted.
> 
>         -- The LIR has to have a plan to make these assignments to 200
>            separate networks (regardless of which organisation these
>            networks belong to). Possible scenario: LIR makes 200
>            assignments to 200 networks. 100 can be for its own
>            infrastructure and 100 can be for another single
>            organisation.
> 
>         -- The LIR has to have a plan to make these assignments to 200
>            separate networks outside of its own infrastructure. Possible
>            scenario: LIR makes 200 assignments to 200 networks "outside
>            of its own infrastructure".
> 
>     Which interpretation was intended regarding the recipient of
>     assignments?

I don't think it was clearly foreseen if the 200 assignments exclude "own" assignments.

> 
> We look forward to receiving the community's input on this.
> 
> Best Regards,
> 
> Laura Cobley
> Registration Services
> RIPE NCC
> 
> 
> 


**********************************
Madrid 2003 Global IPv6 Summit
Presentations and videos on line at:
http://www.ipv6-es.com

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.