Re: [sig-policy] IPv6 Guidelines document

  • To: anne at apnic dot net
  • Subject: Re: [sig-policy] IPv6 Guidelines document
  • From: Izumi Okutani <izumi at nic dot ad dot jp>
  • Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 14:13:04 +0900 (JST)
  • Cc: sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net
  • In-reply-to: < at imap dot apnic dot net>
  • List-archive: <>
  • List-help: <>
  • List-id: APNIC SIG on resource management policy <>
  • List-post: <>
  • List-subscribe: <>,<>
  • List-unsubscribe: <>,<>
  • References: <><><>
      Thanks for the clarification. I was concerned that the operation would
      be too complex if 65,536*/64 registrations would be considered as a
      single /48 assignment, but it is cleared from your explanation.
      Just to confirm, I have put my understanding into a diagram. Please
      let me know if I have the wrong picture.
         <Registrations in Registry DB>
          The case below would be considered as 3*/48 assignments
          X               XX              XXX  XX   XX
          X= assignments longer than /48
          The basic idea is that the utilization is calcuated on /48 address
          range basis as stated in the policy, but DB registration ranges do
          not necessarily need to match as they are for POCs purpose.
      I think this makes sense and understand that some LIRs prefer to
      register enduser assignments rather than making a single /48
      registration as their infrastructure for the POC purpose.
      I'm still not too convinced about registering hosts though. The
      entries in the DB would be enormous if such registrations are
      made. I'm not sure it's worth securing the DB resources to publicly
      support it by specifying in the document. At the bottom line, I agree
      that there is no big harm since it's optional, and it's okay to
      support it case by case in the actual operation.
      Best Regards,
      From: Anne Lord <anne at apnic dot net>
      Subject: Re: [sig-policy] IPv6 Guidelines document
      Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 15:37:57 +1000
      > hi Izumi,
      > Thanks for your comments. I have tried to answer your question below.
      > >--------------------------------------------------------------------------
      > >  11     Registration requirements
      > >  ---------------------------------
      > >(snip)
      > >         * Assignments for networks of /48 or less may be registered, at
      > >           the discretion of the LIR and the network administrator.
      > >         * Assignments to hosts may be registered, at the discretion of
      > >           the LIR and the end site.
      > >--------------------------------------------------------------------------
      > >
      > >It is stated that assignments longer than /48 can be registered. Would
      > >such registrations be taken into account when calculating the
      > >utilization?
      > If they are in the database, then yes they will be counted towards utilisation.
      > >If the answer is yes, I am not sure if the needs for the registrations
      > >are strong enough, especially registering assignments in host basis,
      > Rather like in IPv4 today, I think it unlikely that people will register 
      > individual hosts. People may wish to register longer than /48 network 
      > assignments, but it is not compulsory, as is stated in the language.
      > However, where longer assignments are being made, I think it is legitimate 
      > to make one entry for a /48 that covers (for example) all customer 
      > assignments within that /48.
      >  From 3rd quarter of this year no assignment information will be public by 
      > default in the APNIC database - however it assignment information will be 
      > stored in private in MyAPNIC.
      > *              sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy           *
      > _______________________________________________
      > sig-policy mailing list
      > sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net