1. Copyright (c) 2006 Japan Network Information Center Comments from JP on “End site allocation policy for IPv6” (prop-033-v001 ) Izumi Okutani Japan Network Information Center (JPNIC) Policy SIG APNIC 22@Kaohsiung,Taiwan

2. 1 Copyright (c) 2006 Japan Network Information Center Introduction JPNIC introduced prop-033-v001 at 10 th JPNIC Open Policy Meeting(7 th.July) and had discussions within our community This presentation introduces comments received in Japan for prop-033-v001

3. 2 Copyright (c) 2006 Japan Network Information Center The general position in JP (I) Support the idea of removing the /48 uniform assignment under the following conditions: –LIRs can continue assigning /48s to avoid negative impacts on their existing services –No documentation will be required for assignments equal to and longer than /48, as in the current policy Do not support the proposal if the above conditions are not agreed

4. 3 Copyright (c) 2006 Japan Network Information Center The general position in JP (II) Cannot support the idea of changing the HD- ratio calculation base from /48 to /56 –Rationale is ambiguous –Details of how the existing /48 registrations will be counted are not clarified It may be possible to support it in the future if the rationale and conversion of /48 registrations are reasonable

5. 4 Copyright (c) 2006 Japan Network Information Center Types of comments Received Removing /48 boundary –Clarifications/concerns Requests for further clarifications about the proposal Concerns over the impact on the existing service Suggestion of creating guidelines –Support for the removal of /48 boundary Basing /56 for HD-ratio calculation – Question/comment on how to count currently registered /48 into /56 based HD-ratio calculation

6. 5 Copyright (c) 2006 Japan Network Information Center Requests for clarifications about removing /48 boundary (I) By "LIR's decision", LIRs should be allowed to consider factors other than efficient address utilization in making the decision Would like to make sure that the policy will not be implemented differently later – i.e, do not allow /48 assignments by different interpretations of the policy later.

7. 6 Copyright (c) 2006 Japan Network Information Center Clarifications about removing /48 boundary (II) Can agree with the general principle, but should not compromise on the following point –No documentation should be required for assignments longer than /48 –The pioneers of IPv6 deployment should not be sacrificed by creating negative impacts on the existing IPv6 services

8. 7 Copyright (c) 2006 Japan Network Information Center Clarifications about removing /48 boundary (III) It is not clear why IPv6 address exhaustion has become a concern within the last one year while the situation surrounding IPv6 have not largely changed from the initial policy

9. 8 Copyright (c) 2006 Japan Network Information Center Concerns over the impact on the existing service /48s may not be necessary for new services, but should be allowed for the existing service by LIR's decision –Several networks and services are already running on /48 basis –Not allowing /48 will lead to inconsistency among customers within the same service –A lready have 1M+ customers and it will severely impact the service if /48 cannot be allowed Difficult to justify additional expenses the for the policy when the IPv6 address exhaustion is still not certain when to take place

10. 9 Copyright (c) 2006 Japan Network Information Center Creating guidelines of assignment boundary Rather than leaving it totally free for LIRs to make assignments by 1 bit, it helps to have assignment guidelines for operations –e.g.,recommendations for assignments by 4 bit boundaries for reverse delegations, or other operational advice.

11. 10 Copyright (c) 2006 Japan Network Information Center Support for removing /48 boundary /48 is not necessary for residential users –Hear voices from customers and support it as a service provider –It would be good to have smaller assignment size considering market expansion in home networks The proposal helps adjust needs for subsequent allocations as assignment size will be flexible.

12. 11 Copyright (c) 2006 Japan Network Information Center How to count currently registered /48 into /56 HD-ratio How would an existing /48 registration be counted if this proposal is adopted? Would like to request the existing /48s to be counted as 256*/48

13. 12 Copyright (c) 2006 Japan Network Information Center Show of hands at JPNIC Open Policy Meeting (I) Removing the /48 uniform boundary support the idea regardless of how it will be applied: few support the idea if the decision is completely left to LIRs: majority against the idea regardless of how it will be applied: few

14. 13 Copyright (c) 2006 Japan Network Information Center Show of hands at JPNIC Open Policy Meeting (II) How the choices of assignment size should be; continue /48 assignments: few chose from multiple choices of size(/64, /56, /48, etc): half be completely left to LIRs without specifying any choices: half

15. 14 Copyright (c) 2006 Japan Network Information Center Show of hands at JPNIC Open Policy Meeting (III) 1.Changing the HD-ratio base from /48 to /56 support: few against: few do not understand the motivation/how it will be applied: majority

16. 15 Copyright (c) 2006 Japan Network Information Center Summary Support removing /48 boundary if the choice of assignment size is totally left up to LIRs –Existing service can continue /48 assignments –No documentation for assignments longer than /48 Do not support basing /56 as basis of HD- ratio calculation at this stage –Would like to clarify why the change to /56 base is necessary for HD-ratio calculation –Would like to confirm how /48s will be counted for /56 base HD-ratio calculation

17. 16 Copyright (c) 2006 Japan Network Information Center Questions?