Modify direct IPv6 address assignments to end users

LAC-2016-4-v1 LAC-2016-4-v2 Vs
References:
New
Deleted
Modified
Authors

Name: Jordi Palet Martinez
Email: jordi.palet@consulintel.es
Organization: Consulintel

Name: Jordi Palet Martinez
Email: jordi.palet@consulintel.es
Organization: Consulintel

Summary

This policy was designed based on its IPv4 equivalent. Some of its considerations make no sense in IPv6 and are not cove
red by other RIRs
.
This proposal seeks to modify the text so that these considerations will be consistent with the reality of IPv6

This policy was designed based on its IPv4 equivalent. Some of its considerations make no sense in IPv6.
This proposal seeks to modify the text so that these considerations will be consistent with the reality of IPv6

Rationale

Some of the information which is currently required makes no sense and actually does not affect LACNIC's decision on whe
ther to assign the requested resources.
Since there is no obligation to announce these resources, it makes no sense to talk about routing plans or protocols.
In IPv6, address shortage is not even remotely a consideration. Indeed, this protocol was designed to allow subnets with
very few nodes, which implies that what matters is not the number of nodes but the number of subnets, depending on the
organization's needs.

Some of the information which is currently required makes no sense and actually does not affect LACNIC's decision on whe
ther to assign the requested resources.
Since there is no obligation to announce these resources, it makes no sense to talk about routing plans or protocols.
In IPv6, address shortage is not even remotely a consideration. Indeed, this protocol was designed to allow subnets with
very few nodes, which implies that what matters is not the number of nodes but the number of subnets, depending on the
organization's needs.

Text

The requirements under section 4.5.4.2 would be as follows:
1. Not be an LIR or an ISP.
2. In case of announcing the assignment on the Internet inter-domain routing system, the receiving organization shall an
nounce the block maintaining de-aggregation to a minimum in accordance with the announcing organization's needs.
3. Provide detailed information showing how the requested block will be used within the following three, six and twelve
months.
4. Submit addressing plans for at least one year.

The current text of the policy, section 4.5.4.2, is:
1. Not be an LIR or ISP.
2. In case of announcing the assignment on the Internet inter-domain routing system, the receiving organization shall an
nounce the block maintaining de-aggregation to a minimum in accordance with the announcing organization's needs.
3. Provide detailed information showing how the requested block will be used within the following three, six and twelve
months.
4. Submit addressing plans for at least a year, and host numbers on each subnet.
5. Submit a detailed description of the network topology.
6. Prepare a detailed description of the network routing plans, including the routing protocols to be used as well as an
y existing limitations.
The proposal modification would leave the text at this section:
1. Not be an LIR or ISP.
2. In case of announcing the assignment on the Internet inter-domain routing system, the receiving organization shall an
nounce the block maintaining de-aggregation to a minimum in accordance with the announcing organization's needs.
3. Provide detailed information showing how the requested block will be used within the following three, six and twelve
months.
4. Submit addressing plans for at least a year.
This proposal does NOT modify the rest of the text.

Additional Information

None

The items that would be eliminated are not contemplated by other RIRs

References

-

-