policy pres okutani v6 survey

Survey results in JP on IPv6 assignment size : 

Survey results in JP on IPv6 assignment size Izumi Okutani <izumi@nic.ad.jp> Japan Network Information Center (JPNIC) Policy SIG APNIC 21@Perth, Australia

Overview of the Survey: 

Overview of the Survey

Introduction: 

Introduction This presentation introduces the survey result in JP on IPv6 assignment size

Background: 

Background A new assignment size of /56 for home/SOHO users was proposed by Geoff Huston in APNIC20 (prop-031-v002) Some LIRs in JP expressed strong concerns JPNIC felt the needs to look into the situation Is this just the minority, or representative of JP?

Objective of the survey: 

Objective of the survey Study the impact of the IPv6 assignment policy change on LIRs over : Service,Network,Customer,Cost Compare the impact over three different proposals discussed in APNIC, RIPE and ARIN Is a particular proposal more agreeable than the others?

Overview: 

Overview Target 64 LIRs with IPv6 allocation via JPNIC No. of responses 36 LIRs(56%) Types of service Testing 72.2% Commercial 27.8%

Method: 

Method Conducted an e-mail questionnaire to LIRs on the four areas for each of the three cases Case1(APNIC20) /56 must be assigned to SOHO/home-users Case2(RIPE50/51) LIRs can decide /48 or /56 as an assignment Case 3(ARINXVI) LIRs can assign any size by bite e.g.,/61, /39, etc Least flexible Most flexible

Results: 

Results

1) Impact on Service: 

1) Impact on Service No impact for approx. 80%, regardless of the case Flexibility of assignment size

Reasons for No Service Change: 

Reasons for No Service Change Major reason = not yet commercial Flexibility of assignment size “Flexibility in size” appears for 1&2, but not too substantial

Areas of Service Change: 

Areas of Service Change Nearly 50% = Service menu “Target” slightly more affected than the others Flexibility of assignment size

2) Impact on Network: 

2) Impact on Network No Large impact in general % of no impact increases as flexibility increases Flexibility of assignment size

Areas of Impact on Network: 

Areas of Impact on Network Impact on infrastructure increases as flexibility increases Flexibility of assignment size

3) Impact on Existing Customers : 

3) Impact on Existing Customers No large impact in general. Almost no impact for Case 3 Flexibility of assignment size

Additional Costs: 

Additional Costs Additional costs required for approx.50% % slightly decreases as flexibility increases Flexibility of assignment size

Scale of Costs: 

Scale of Costs MM=Man Months Flexibility of assignment size MM=Man Month 1JPY=USD0.0085 Almost 50% =≦JPY500K/0.3M Scale of Cost decreases as flexibility increases

Major Comments(1): 

Major Comments(1) Against removing fixed boundaries Removes advantages of IPv6 by applying the same condition as IPv4 No direct costs but fixed costs increases for network complexity and hostmaster work Concerns over impact on IPv6 deployment Frequent policy changes gives IPv6 unstable image and hinders deployment Additional costs should be avoided

Major Comments(2): 

Major Comments(2) Why need changes in addition to HD-ratio? Not sufficient with lifetime extension of 600 years? The situation in JP and other communities If other communities are favorable, what is the reason? Are other communities making discussions with awareness of these impacts in JP? Details of the proposal should be clarified How to judge the appropriate size, criteria for subsequent allocation,etc

Observation: 

Observation No large impact on service, network and customers, but has impact on cost for nearly 50%, and large impact(<10MJPY) for 2 LIRs Case3 demonstrates the least impact statistically, but strong concerns were expressed on the comments section Case2 would probably be most agreeable out of the three, but careful consideration is necessary for cost impact < 85K USD

The General Feeling in JP: 

The General Feeling in JP Not necessarily against the change if it is for the good of the Internet, but not quite convinced of the needs so far Negative impact is visible and specific, but positive impact gives conceptual impression Change in HD-ratio is acceptable, but is the assignment size change really necessary with impacts on the current service? Haven’t taken a consensus vote yet

Issues to be considered: 

Issues to be considered To what extent should impact on the current ISPs be considered? What would be a good balance between long term view and impact on the current IPv6 service?

Questions?: 

Questions?