Hi everyone,
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?
Many thanks!
philip
(speaking for the authors)
--
