Policy Development Framework for Government IPv6 Deployment - APRICOT
Simplified IPv6 policy
description
Transcript of Simplified IPv6 policy
![Page 1: Simplified IPv6 policy](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062501/568165b1550346895dd8a44b/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Simplified IPv6 policy
Draft Policy 2010-7
![Page 2: Simplified IPv6 policy](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062501/568165b1550346895dd8a44b/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Origin (Proposal 106) 29 December 2009
Draft Policy 23 February 2010
AC Shepherds:David FarmerScott Leibrand
2010-7 - History
![Page 3: Simplified IPv6 policy](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062501/568165b1550346895dd8a44b/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
2010-7 – Summary(Simplified IPv6 policy)
• Significantly changes IPv6 policy– Organizations would be allowed to qualify
for one each of the following prefixes: /48, /40, /32, /28, and /24
– Qualification for each prefix is based on specific requirements (multi-homing, host count, # of sites, and # of projected /48s)
– Each prefix is issued from a specific range
![Page 4: Simplified IPv6 policy](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062501/568165b1550346895dd8a44b/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
2010-7 – Status at other RIRs(Simplified IPv6 policy)
• Draft policy is unique to ARIN region.
• Other RIRs have IPv6 assignment and allocation policies that are similar to ARIN’s present policy
![Page 5: Simplified IPv6 policy](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062501/568165b1550346895dd8a44b/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
2010-7 – Staff AssessmentLegal: Liability Risk? NoStaff Comments: Issues/Concerns?Earlier staff feedback (from the Clarity and Understanding step) was addressed.
No
Implementation: Resource Impact? Minimal
Assessment available:• Discussion Guide• http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/2010-February/016710.html
![Page 6: Simplified IPv6 policy](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062501/568165b1550346895dd8a44b/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
2010-7 – PPML Discussion• Earlier proposal discussion• 3 posts by 3 People• 2 in favor, 0 against• “I support this policy.”• “…does this piece of the policy allow me to
reserve a portion of my /32 (eg. /44) for residential clients and SWIP the entire thing as a whole as 'Private Customer Block - XYZ Network' as opposed to SWIPing each individual /56 as private?”
![Page 7: Simplified IPv6 policy](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062501/568165b1550346895dd8a44b/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Simplified IPv6 policy
Draft Policy 2010-7