Re: [Wg-ipv6-guide] (ToC 7) Initial allocation criteria

[Toshiyuki Hosaka <hosaka@nic.ad.jp>]

Hi all,

I have amended the draft for "7.Initial allocation criteria", taking
Izumi's comment into consideration.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
7. (*) Initial allocation criteria

According to current IPv6 policy, to qualify for an initial allocation 
of IPv6 address space, an organization must meet the criteria stated in
policy clause 5.1.1.

There are some points to consider when the organization wishes to receive
IPv6 addresses other than those criteria, which are as follows;

    - An end site should receive IPv6 address from LIR(s) under current 
      policy, because there is no portable address assignment policy 
      in IPv6.

    - An LIR is encouraged to aggregate multiple /48s which will be
      assigned to other organizations into /32 (or shorter where
      an LIR receives multiple /32s). The reason to aggregate is based
      on "Policy clause 3.4".

    - An organization must provide a 'plan' to make at least 200 /48
      assignments, but is not necessarily required to 'commit' 200.
      RIR/NIR regards the exisitence of a 'plan' to provide IPv6 services
      or its readiness to commence, not the feasibility.

    - For example an ISP which has more than 200 customers can meet 
      this criteria (d) if it plans to provide them with IPv6 
      connectivity service.

    - sub-allocations to downstream ISPs are taken into account as
      "to be assigned /48".

       e.g) The following case meets the initial allocation criteria 
            of 200*/48.

		Plan within the next two years:
		/44 sub-allocation   (= 16*/48 assignments)
		assignments to POPs     20*/48
		assignments to "sites" 170*/48 
                -----------------------------------------
		total                  206*/48  > 200*/48 


     - Each static (or dynamic) IP address assignment for its customers 
       can be considered as a /48 assignment. 

     - Existing IPv4 infrastructure/customers can also be taken into
       consideration.

     - For example, if a CATV provider has 4,000 IP static connection
       customers in IPv4 and 5%(200) of them are expected to subscribe 
       IPv6 service connection, then, it this provider meets the criteria.

     - This is not only restricted to the cases where they assign multiple
       static IP in IPv4. Even if LIRs assign a single static IP in IPv4,
       it's up to the ISP to assign /48 to these customers.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Also I think it's good to add one section, which explains assignment
address space size, besides this section. i will post it afterwards.

Thanks for your further feedback in advance...

regards,
Toshi


From: Toshiyuki Hosaka <hosaka@nic.ad.jp>
Subject: Re: [Wg-ipv6-guide] (ToC 7) Initial allocation criteria
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 18:39:17 +0900

> Hi Anne,
> 
> Thanks for your comment. I feel it difficult how we should describe it
> in the guideline since we cannot guarantee the allocation if an LIR 
> sticks to /64 not /48 as long as the policy says "200 x /48" but 
> anyway I try to. Maybe we can add some substantial examples in here.
> 
> Thanks and best regards,
> Toshi
> 
> 
> From: Anne Lord <anne@apnic.net>
> Subject: Re: [Wg-ipv6-guide] (ToC 7) Initial allocation criteria
> Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 12:47:43 +1000 (EST)
> 
> > 
> > 
> > Hi Toshi,
> > 
> > > suppose what Maruta-san would like to raise here is even if LIR has
> > > lots of, say 100,000, customer to be assigned /64, it does not reach
> > > 200 /48 criteria.
> > > 
> > >  /48 = 65,536 x /64 
> > >  200 x /48 = 200 x 65,536 x /64 = 13,107,200 x /64 >> 100,000 x /64
> > > 
> > > This does not seem to meet 200 /48 criteria, as Maruta-san pointed
> > > out.
> > > 
> > > Does anyone from APNIC have thoughts for this case?
> > 
> > Perhaps the guidelines should be written to emphasise the need for 
> > a *plan* to provide IPv6 services, rather than the actual number of /48
> > assignments. Both are valid in the context of the current policy, 
> > but ultimately the intention of the policy is to target entities that 
> > wish to provide IPv6 connectivity services. If there is already an 
> > IPv4 network infrastructure in place (as suggested above), this can 
> > also be taken into account and any such organisation as the one above, 
> > would and *should* most definately qualify. 
> > 
> > Hope this helps,
> > Anne
> > --
>