j: Next unread message
k: Previous unread message
j a: Jump to all threads
j l: Jump to MailingList overview
I think it could be possible that there will be needs for these assignments if there is a new gTLD/ccTLD set up as critical infrastructure, and we could also have new IXPs or multi-homed networks. We constantly make 3-4 assignments/year for these use within JP.
Then again, if the numbers are not very big, may be it can accomodated within the /16 reserved for unexpected future use.
Terrence, do you have an idea on how many of these assignments we should expect?
Terry Manderson wrote:
I'm not seeing that as an issue.. Are you worried that those unscrupulous users of IP address space would take a /22 from the last /8 policy and the transfer it in chunks of /24 to people? Please clarify why the /24 transfer size in the final /8 is a problem?
I support /24 transfer size very much, Sir. Since you expressed strong objection to /24 allocation size and don't want this 'be replicated' in the final /8, so I was just wondering if you will propose to change /24 the minimum transfer size.
Transfers are a different beast to the final /8 allocation. Don't you see that?
What I am suggesting is that the industry will get far better use of those /22 allocations in the last /8 as for use in v6 transition without being chopped up and micromanaged into /24 slices.
It makes no sense to keep the last /8 immune from /24 delegations, while the dozens of /8 allocated before the last /8 allowing /24 assignments.
What I now think is keeping this thread going makes little sense. There appears to be no support for this proposal.
sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
sig-policy mailing list firstname.lastname@example.org http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy