j: Next unread message
k: Previous unread message
j a: Jump to all threads
j l: Jump to MailingList overview
There were questions and points raised during the recent discussion about prop-062 which probably require answering, or at least re-emphasising based on what Jonny, Randy and I have already proposed in the text.
For your info, I've summarised them here.
Q: Why was a /22 chosen as the final allocation size?
A: As we described in the text, this prefix size was chosen to be consistent with the existing APNIC minimum allocation standard.
Q: Why was the final allocation made available to any/all comers, as opposed to reserving them for new entrants, or at least first-time IPv6 seekers?
A: Making every LIR eligible to receive a final allocation on equal terms seems to us to be the simplest, most broadly acceptable approach to satisfy "fairness" concerns across APNIC's membership and resource holders. Further, it makes little over all difference given the current minimum allocation (please check the maths).
Q: What mechanisms will prevent or at least discourage institutions from trying to secure multiple "final" allocations, e.g. by spawning additional new LIRs, either for internal use or resale?
A: APNIC administrative review procedures already include measures to identify potential relationships between new and existing LIRs, so we feel that no additional mechanisms are required. The proposed policy will be no more/no less vulnerable to misuse than existing allocation policy.
Finally, there was one expression of interest in tying an allocation from the final /8 as per this proposal to a successful application for an IPv6 address block. Is there any other interest from the community in this idea?
philip (speaking for the authors) --