OK, here's my reply... -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [Ipv6-techsig] Possible changes to IPv6 allocation regime Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2011 11:21:33 +1300 From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter(a)gmail.com> Organization: University of Auckland To: IPv6-techsig <ipv6-techsig(a)mailman.internetnz.net.nz> CC: InternetNZ Members Discussion List <members-discuss(a)internetnz.net.nz> Sigh. This idea was first proposed by Zhao Houlin when he was head of the ITU-T and it comes back again from time to time. We've been playing whack-a-mole since at least 2005. It's fundamentally broken from a technical viewpoint, and the equity argument is incorrect (although it's an easy bandwagon for politicians to jump on). Technically it's broken because route aggregation is a necessity for BGP4+ to scale, and route aggregation follows network topology, not political boundaries. Therefor, address allocation must also follow topology, which means that (except for the PI aberration) address allocation must be to ISPs. This certainly doesn't preclude Indian local (Tier 3) ISPs getting their allocations from an Indian registry, but the policy must remain purely topological, and Tier 1 and 2 ISPs will want to get their space from APNIC for sure. As for a "more efficient and equitable way of sharing IPv6 resources", I can see that a local mechanism could be marginally more efficient for local operators. However, the equity argument really doesn't fly; there's nothing inequitable about APNIC policy. The perceived inequity in IPv4 allocations is an artefact of history, resulting from the fact that IPv4 has *never* had enough address space for a worldwide network. Naturally enough, the operators that deployed IPv4 first got their address space first, while it was still plentiful. This will not be an issue for IPv6. Regards Brian Carpenter On 2011-09-27 11:06, Dean Pemberton wrote:

Cross-posted but just as important here.

Do have a read of the article, have a think about how this might effect you and if you've got any thoughts, make sure you express them.

Regards, Dean

-------- Original Message -------- Subject: [Ipv6-techsig] Possible changes to IPv6 allocation regime Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2011 10:31:21 +1300 From: Andy Linton <asjl(a)lpnz.org>

I'm being a bit contentious in the subject line but I got you to read this. :-)

At the recent APNIC meeting in Busan there was a proposal from India to change the way IPv6 addresses are allocated. It's important to note that they aren't just asking for this to be the way things are done just for India but for all of us. It's significant enough that it makes the local press there:

http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/internet/article2485006.ece

Why should you care? Recently there's been some discussion on the INZ members list about how we should engage on address policy issues from NZ and this issue will be on the table at the next APNIC meeting in New Delhi in late Feb next year.

Your views on this might just be important but you need to express them for them to be heard.

_______________________________________________ IPv6-techsig mailing list IPv6-techsig(a)mailman.internetnz.net.nz http://mailman.internetnz.net.nz/mailman/listinfo/ipv6-techsig

------------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog