[ga] Re: [sig-policy]Policy proposal: IPv6 allocations to IPv4 networks
Paul and all,
In that the new NRO is replacing the ASO and the membership
structure seems to no longer allow for individuals as members
and therefore cannot vote on policy considerations yet have
address assigned or in use as well as the new fee structure
seemingly extraordinarily high. How than can those members
especially in countries of far less financial means actively
participate?
See for reference:
http://www.aso.icann.org/
http://www.apnic.net/member/index.html
Paul Wilson wrote:
> I would like to present the following proposal at the coming APNIC meeting.
>
> Paul Wilson
> APNIC
>
> ==============
>
> Proposal: IPv6 allocations to organisations with existing IPv4
> infrastructure
>
> Version 1.0
>
> 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 organisation commit to a complete transition to IPv6 at any time,
> only that the IPv6 addresses will be used, and that use of the address space
> will commence within 2 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.
>
> * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy
> *
> _______________________________________________
> sig-policy mailing list
> sig-policy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
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]
===============================================================
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801