RE: [hm-staff] Re: The list of current Issues in IPv6 Policy

It is clear from the policy criteria that the policy was meant for the
RIRs to only provide /32 to transit providers.  No discussion was done
about private networks as the RFC 1918 concept was not to apply.  It
would appear to me that there needs to be a policy proposal to address
the private network issue in which globally unique private addresses are
required for networks using IPv6.

Ray

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] 
> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Izumi Okutani
> Sent: Monday, September 29, 2003 4:23 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Cc: gih-pWIpc5MZKA/[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; 
> [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [hm-staff] Re: [GLOBAL-V6]The list of current 
> Issues in IPv6 Policy
> 
> 
> Thanks for your comment and sharing APNIC's position, Son.
> 
> It would be nice to learn the situation in other regions too.  I
> assume RIRs are working very closely in request evaluation as well,
> but perhaps, we need further discussions if the situation differs by
> regions?
> 
> Izumi
> 
> From: John Tran <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: [hm-staff] Re: [GLOBAL-V6]The list of current 
> Issues in IPv6
>  Policy
> Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 17:41:53 +1000 (EST)
> 
> > 
> > hi Izumi,
> > 
> > APNIC currently allocates IPv6 addresses to organisations that have
> > private 'closed' networks. We recognise that this is not documented
> > in the current policy and agree that there should be a 
> clause to cover
> > this.
> > 
> > 
> > Son
> > 
> > APNIC
> > 
> > On Fri, 26 Sep 2003, Izumi Okutani wrote:
> > 
> > > From: Geoff Huston <gih-pWIpc5MZKA/[email protected]>
> > > Subject: Re: [GLOBAL-V6]The list of current Issues in IPv6 Policy
> > > Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 10:11:58 +1000
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > >I'm wondering how we can proceed from here. Is it just 
> a matter of
> > > > >confirming the actual situation with the RIRs, or do 
> we need another
> > > > >process to confirm the interpretation?
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Personally I would suggest that it may be worth an 
> effort to formally
> > > > amend the policy and specifically include criteria for access to
> > > > IPv6 address blocks from the RIR or NIR as a PI 
> allocation without
> > > > a need for announcement for such blocks on the global Internet
> > > > (which is what I infer from your description of a 
> 'closed' network)
> > > Thanks for the suggestion.
> > > 
> > > I wasn't sure if this is considered as a matter of 
> interpretation or
> > > the policy amendment, but since it's an undefined area, I 
> agree, we
> > > should go through a formal process.
> > >  
> > > 
> > > Izumi
> > > 
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > global-v6 mailing list
> > > [email protected]
> > > http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/global-v6
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Hostmaster-staff mailing list
> > > [email protected]
> > > http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/hostmaster-staff
> > > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > global-v6 mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/global-v6
> > 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> global-v6 mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/global-v6
> 

_______________________________________________
global-v6 mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/global-v6