Orbit

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1

_______________________________________________________________________

prop-094: Adding alternative criteria to renumbering requirement in final /8 policy _______________________________________________________________________

Dear SIG members

Below is a summary of discussions on the proposal to date. We encourage you to continue discussions on the mailing list before the Policy SIG.

Regards,

Gaurab, Ching-Heng, and Terence

Proposal summary - ----------------

This is a proposal to add an alternative criteria to the requirement for organizations receiving their initial allocation from APNIC to renumber out of their previously deployed space when they are allocated addresses under the final /8 policy.

Discussion statistics - ---------------------

Version 1 posted to Policy SIG mailing list: 25 January 2011

Number of posts since proposal first posted: 21

Number of people participating in discussions: 11

Summary of discussion to date - -----------------------------

- There was a suggestion to set the level at 90% occupied rather than 80% to reduce wasted space, although another point of view was that 20% was not a great amount of wasted space. An author confirmed that the 80% figure was chosen just to reflect existing policy.

- There were concerns about disaggregation raised as a consequence of this policy. Others doubted this would be significant.

- There was discussion about how difficult it would be for operators to renumber.

- There was disagreement over whether the "new alternative criteria" is more relaxed or more strict than pre-final /8 policy. One point of view was that the final /22 should be used for Ipv6 deployment and that there should very few restrictions on it.

- There was discussion about encouraging IPv6 adoption such as ensuring every final /8 went to an organization with an IPv6 address block, or requiring a deployment plan.

http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-094