RE: [GLOBAL-V6]IPv6 Allocation Policy

[Izumi Okutani <izumi@nic.ad.jp>]

I agree that the policy itself needs improvements in wordings, etc,
but the purspose of the guidelines I have in mind is different from
the policy document.

 Purpose of the guidelines:
   a) Complements concepts/criteria set in the policy 
   b) Provide details on how to deal with special cases
   c) Highlights any parts of the policy that requires emphasis

I fear that if you include too much operational details into the
policy document, the core criteria becomes unclear, and address
management becomes too rigid.

Here is how I distinguish the two:

 Policy Document
  - Provides a set of ideas/criteria about IPv6 management
  - Describes the basic concept of IPv6 address management, and
    defines a criteria for allocations/assignments

 Guidelines
  - Provides some tips for requestors in making IPv6 requests with
    more specific details(like documented version of FAQs)
  - It does not define any criteria itself. It merely complments the
    idea behind the policy, possibly with some examples for specific cases
  - Should be easily updated, reflecting the latest situation

We are currently working on the guideline within JPNIC and planning to
make a presentation in our coming Open Meeting in early July, held for
the Japanese community.

We are happy to share the outcome in the mailing list, and also
interested to hear the opinions of the others in the list.

Thanks!

Izumi


From: "Michel Py" <michel@arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us>
Subject: RE: [GLOBAL-V6]IPv6 Allocation Policy
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 20:43:14 -0700

> Hi Izumi,
> 
> > Izumi Okutani wrote:
> > Thanks for summarising the choices. May I suggest adding
> > "Producing an IPv6 guide" as an option to deal with the
> > issues as well?
> 
> I hope you are not thinking about me to write this guide, as I do not
> feel qualified by any means. I was merely trying to contribute to the
> question that Gert raised a while ago about from a protocol designer's
> point of view.
> 
> 
> > I am thinking of a guide similar to APNIC's "APNIC guidelines
> > for IPv4 allocation and assignment requests"
> > (http://www.apnic.net/docs/policy/ipv4-guidelines.html),
> > but should be shared among all RIRs for IPv6 version.
> 
> 
> What about:
> http://www.arin.net/policy/ipv6_policy.html
> This document is common to all RIRs AFAIK.
> 
> It might not be as flexible as you wish, but I would gladly leave
> improvements and/or additions to it in the capable hands of Thomas
> Narten and other valued colleagues that have experience in policy
> matters.
> 
> I will gladly comment on technical solutions and their relation to
> policy matters.
> 
> Thanks,
> Michel.
> 
> 
> P.S: Note to Gert:
> Given the zero interest and the multiple hurdles associated with the
> geographic scheme I suggested earlier, I'll gladly drop it in favor of
> your proposed solution of allocating a large block to each RIR up front.
> Related to IANA-to-RIR delegation, I still think that this geo scheme is
> superior to a single monolithic block and makes sense from an engineer's
> point of view, but is a political liability that I can't commit any
> resources to lobby for.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> global-v6 mailing list
> global-v6@lists.apnic.net
> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/global-v6
>