Re: [GLOBAL-V6]The list of current Issues in IPv6 Policy

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

Thanks for all your comments. It is interesting to learn the situation
in different regions.

Let me just clarify one point. There seems to be some confusion over
the two types of issues regarding unique global addresses for closed
networks.

Issue 1)
Assigning a single or multiple /48 to a closed network
  This allows assignments of globally unique addresses to "private
  networks", networks that do not require a global internet
  connection, e.g,coporate LAN.

  The idea is similar to RFC1918 addresses in IPv4 except that the
  addresses will be globally unique. An issue currently dicussed in
  IETF.

Issue 2)
Allocating a /32(or a shorter prefix) to a closed intra-network
  The case we had in Japan was an ISP providing an internet service to
  its subscribers within its infrastructure. They need a globally
  unique address to avoid address duplicates in customer
  networks. Mutiple /48 assignments will not support this case as the
  route must be aggregated by the ISP, and they have over 1M
  customers. FYI, we already received an allocation for this already.

  This is just one example, but there may be needs for globally
  unique allocations for intra-networks to address duplicates, when each
  network is managed by different entities. 

I agree that Case 1 is an IETF issue, but it seems to me that Case2 is
not within the scope of the current IETF dicussions. 

Izumi

From: German Valdez <german@lacnic.net>
Subject: Re: [GLOBAL-V6]The list of current Issues in IPv6 Policy
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 18:35:01 -0300

> At 08:04 AM 9/25/2003, Izumi Okutani wrote:
> 
> >
> >I'm wondering how we can proceed from here. Is it just a matter of
> >confirming the actual situation with the RIRs, or do we need another
> >process to confirm the interpretation?
> >
> >In anycase, I am interested to know how the RIRs deal with such
> >requests(allocation for closed networks) under the current
> >policy. Could I request the RIRs to share it in the ML?
> >
> >
> >Izumi
> >
> 
> LACNIC doesn't allocate IPv6 addresses for "private 'closed' networks.".
> 
> In fact, the IPv6 working groups is considering to include one possible 
> additional condition in the current policies. The condition would be that 
> the IPv6 would be announced in the Internet in less a given time.
> 
> German Valdez
> Policy Liaison
> LACNIC
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >_______________________________________________
> >global-v6 mailing list
> >global-v6@lists.apnic.net
> >http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/global-v6
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> global-v6 mailing list
> global-v6@lists.apnic.net
> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/global-v6
>