j: Next unread message
k: Previous unread message
j a: Jump to all threads
j l: Jump to MailingList overview
Thanks for your comments. I understand ARIN & RIPE has /28-/24 or /27 (propose) allocation size and they allow subsequent allocation.
I think an allocation size </24 may creat too many routes in the global routing table, we do not want to create longer prefixes in the Internet routing table just because of this policy; and based on the knowledge of current Internet's route filtering culture, we believe /24 is the most generally accepted longest prefix currently.
That's why we proposed /24 allocation size in version1, now taken into account people's worries about /24 is too small and subsequent allocations are not necessary and it is too complicated... we think it's better to make it simple, just propose adding IPv6 requirements in the final /8 allocations.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Andy Linton" email@example.com To: firstname.lastname@example.org Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 4:41 AM Subject: Re: [sig-policy] Prop-78 'Reserving /10 IPv4 address space to facilitate IPv6 deployment' Comments
I'd also like to ask about minimum and maximum allocation sizes. The ARIN policy has a /28 minimum and a /24 maximum for the /10 they plan to set aside. The RIPE policy proposes that the final /8 should use a /27 minimum which they note is 'downscaling the current minimum allocation size /21'.
Do you envisage such changes to APNIC policy in conjunction with your proposal?
sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
sig-policy mailing list email@example.com http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy