Re: [sig-policy] IPv6 Guidelines document

  • To: Izumi Okutani <izumi at nic dot ad dot jp>
  • Subject: Re: [sig-policy] IPv6 Guidelines document
  • From: Anne Lord <anne at apnic dot net>
  • Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 22:08:15 +1000
  • Cc: sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net
  • In-reply-to: <20040513.112655.68543795.izumi at nic dot ad dot jp>
  • List-archive: <http://www.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-policy>
  • List-help: <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=help>
  • List-id: APNIC SIG on resource management policy <sig-policy.lists.apnic.net>
  • List-post: <mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net>
  • List-subscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy>,<mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=subscribe>
  • List-unsubscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy>,<mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=unsubscribe>
  • References: <5.1.0.14.0.20040513110638.04189d80@imap.apnic.net><5.1.0.14.0.20040510150112.04557ce8@imap.apnic.net><20040512.141304.125113735.izumi@nic.ad.jp><5.1.0.14.0.20040513110638.04189d80@imap.apnic.net>
    • Hi Izumi
      
      Good idea. We'll amend the draft document as you suggest.
      
      Thanks for your suggestion.
      
      Best wishes,
      Anne
      --
      
      At 11:26 AM 13/05/2004 +0900, Izumi Okutani wrote:
      
      Hi Anne,

      From: Anne Lord <anne at apnic dot net>
      Subject: Re: [sig-policy] IPv6 Guidelines document
      Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 11:29:15 +1000

      >
      > Hi Izumi,
      >
      > Many thanks for your mail.
      >
      > Your understanding as you describe it below is correct.
      >
      > Just as in IPv4, I think there is no strong desire to register hosts in
      > IPv6. I think there may be people who register sub-networks (by which I
      > mean /64's) for the reasons you state, though of course it is not
      > compulsory. (We should also remember that all assignment information will
      Yes, I understand. In that case, would it be insufficient to merely
      leave the statement below

      " * Assignments for networks of /48 or less may be registered,
      at the discretion of the LIR and the networ administrator."

      and remove the following clause?

      " * Assignments to hosts may be registered, at the discretion
      of the LIR and the end site."

      I felt that by specifically making the second statement while it is
      already covered by the first("/48 or less" can be assignments to hosts
      as well as /64s), it gives the impression that assignments to hosts
      are encouraged.

      > be hidden by default in the APNIC database later this year). In terms of
      > utilisation, it may be worth adding a note explaining that /64's if
      > registered will be counted as a utilised /48.
      Good idea.

      Thanks once again for compiling the document.


      Best Regards,
      Izumi


      > Best wishes,
      >
      > Anne
      > --
      >
      > At 02:13 PM 12/05/2004 +0900, Izumi Okutani wrote:
      > >Hi Anne,
      > >
      > >
      > >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
      > >
      > > <-----/48------><-----/48------><-----/48------><-----/48------>
      > > |--------------||--------------||--------------||--------------|
      > > 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,
      > >Izumi
      > >
      > >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
      > > > http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
      > > >
      > > >
      >
      > * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
      > _______________________________________________
      > sig-policy mailing list
      > sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net
      > http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
      >
      >