Re: [GLOBAL-V6] New draft available: IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Global Policy

[cjw@groovy.com]

Arano-san

    From: Takashi Arano <arano@gblx.ad.jp>
    Subject: Re: [GLOBAL-V6] New draft available: IPv6 Address Allocation
	     and Assignment Global Policy 
    Cathy,
    
    At 12:16 02/02/08, CJ Wittbrodt wrote:
    >First I'd like to respond to your last sentence, your English is
    >just fine...  thanks for the thoughtful note.  I have one comment
    >(see below)
    
    Thanks. 
    Are you supporting my idea except this one?
    

Sorry for the delay in responding.  I feel that it is essential
that we have a global policy.  I feel that it is also very important that
we have a policy, some sort of criteria that is used to determine
who gets blocks from RIRs and who gets them from their ISP.  I know that
there are always ways of circumventing the policy, but we still need to have
one.  I understand Wilfried's comments on making sure we don't inhibit deployment
of IPv6.   I also feel that we should try out best not to make the mistakes of
the past (creating the haves and have nots, and other things discussed already).  

I believe that your proposal with the recently suggested change is a good
start along the way of having a global policy.  I am not sure if this will
be approved in all regions.  I'd like to see it put into a draft so that the
upcoming APNIC and ARIN policy groups can discuss it.  

Thanks!
---CJ


    >     At 09:52 02/02/07, CJ Wittbrodt wrote:
    >     >Maybe we should look at the people you refer to as wanting to be "in"
    >     >and figure out what distinguishes them from just some end user who
    >     >should have a /48 from their upstream...?
    >     
    >     Yes, this is the point.
    >     
    >     I basically supports RIPE's consensus.
    >     First, requiring 776 customer sites as criteria of getting /32 
    >     is a too high barrier and should be relaxed in any way. 
    >     Maybe, anyone can agree with this so far.
    >     
    >     Next, "any LIR can get /32 until 2000 /32 per a region" 
    >     is almost OK, but one problem may be
    >     to use the existing definition(s) of "LIR" mainly defined for IPv4. 
    >     In ARIN region, you can become a LIR if you pay some money as far as 
    >     I heard. This may include an large enterprise.
    >     One concern here is that this rule will give /32 end users even
    >     if they are large enterprise. We should avoid this as Thomas suggested.
    >
    >In the ARIN region, it is true, anyone can become a member of ARIN
    >by paying a fee.  to get address space, however, you have to give 
    >quite a lot of justification.  Every ARIN member does not have address
    >space.  I just want to make sure that's clear.  I am a member of ARIN
    >as an individual.  I paid $500 for the year 2002.  I have no address space
    >and I am not what you'd call an LIR.
    
    Thank you for your clarification. Maybe your comment supports
    an idea of avoiding use of the term "LIR".
    
    Regards,
    Takashi Arano
    
-
- This list (global-v6) is handled by majordomo@lists.apnic.net