j: Next unread message
k: Previous unread message
j a: Jump to all threads
j l: Jump to MailingList overview
Yes it is.
----- Original Message ----- From: Gajendra Upadhyay (COR) Sent: Friday, August 26, 2011 04:17 PM To: Amit Tank (NLD); email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org Cc: Uday Joshi (NLD); VIJEET KAMBLI (ILD) Subject: RE: sig-policy Digest, Vol 87, Issue 47
Amit, Tks. Is this now visible on the forum for others to comment? Tks and Rgds
-----Original Message----- From: Amit Tank (NLD) Sent: Friday, August 26, 2011 9:01 AM To: email@example.com Cc: Uday Joshi (NLD); VIJEET KAMBLI (ILD); Gajendra Upadhyay (COR) Subject: RE: sig-policy Digest, Vol 87, Issue 47
We welcome and support the prop-100 National IP Address Plan - Allocation of country-wide IP address blocks .
Need to have clarity on:
1. Criteria and strategy of reservation of Large IP blocks for ISP's , especially the ones which have large growth plans. 2. Availability of contiguous blocks , which would help in summarization.
Regards Amit Planning and Projects +91 9819818736
-----Original Message----- From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com] On Behalf Of firstname.lastname@example.org Sent: Friday, August 26, 2011 5:04 AM To: email@example.com Subject: sig-policy Digest, Vol 87, Issue 47
Send sig-policy mailing list submissions to firstname.lastname@example.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to email@example.com
You can reach the person managing the list at firstname.lastname@example.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of sig-policy digest..."
1. Re: prop-098 Optimizing IPv6 allocation strategies(simplified) (Terence Zhang YH) 2. Re: FW: prop-100 National IP Address Plan - Allocation of country-wide IP address blocks (Milind.Deshpande@relianceada.com) 3. Re: prop-098 Optimizing IPv6 allocation strategies(simplified) (Owen DeLong) 4. Re: prop-098 Optimizing IPv6 allocation strategies(simplified) (Leo Vegoda) 5. Re: Article of possible interest to the community (John Curran)
Message: 1 Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2011 14:56:22 +0800 From: "Terence Zhang YH" email@example.com Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-098 Optimizing IPv6 allocation strategies(simplified) To: "Owen DeLong" firstname.lastname@example.org Cc: email@example.com Message-ID: firstname.lastname@example.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
(NO link to co-chair's opinion)
We have intensive interest in prop-098, generally speaking, we support the idea of more generous IPv6 allocations policy, and nibble boundary allocation etc.
We have a few questions about the proposal:
1. About Provider Allocation Unit: It is defined as the smallest reassignment unit used by the provider.
Q1: Is the size of the PAU defined by the provider? Do they need to justify the size?
2. About End site: It is defined as a single structure or service delivery address
Q2: When it comes to mobile IP services, Is the 'end site' applied to a PDA or Cell phone devices, a personal area network (PAN), an Access Point, or a POP?
3. Section 4.2: ......5 years of projected customer utilization based on assigning each customer end-site one provider allocation unit without exceeding a 75% utilization.
Q3: Does this assume each customer end-site will be allocated one same size PAU?
4. Section 5.1 subsequent allocation criteria:
- 75% or more utilization of their total address space, OR - One or more facilities which have reached a 90% utilization...... there are no available blocks of sufficient size in the providers current allocation(s) to expand those facilities.
Q4: How to justify 'there are no available blocks of sufficient size', specifically when the LIR has sparsely assigned 160 * /40 from a /32, now one of the /40 site becomes full, and no more contiguous /40 left, will this be considered meet the criteria.
5. Section 2.4. The HD ratio ......Using nibble-boundaries and rounding up actually yields similar results with simpler math.
Q5: How to understand 'nibble-boundaries round up' will have the similiar results with HD? With a consistent 75% usage and unpredictable 1-8 times rounding up, my humble feeling is the utilization is unpredictable, but the HD-ratio requirement is predictable.
Prefix HD require Utlization: ---------------------------- /32 36.9% /28 31.2% /24 26.4% /20 22.4%
In my premature estimation, the 75% usage plus round up maybe more relax than HD requirement in small network, but it maybe more restricted than HD in large network.
Q6: Does this proposal remove HD-ratio criteria completely?
Message: 2 Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2011 20:45:20 +0530 From: Milind.Deshpande@relianceada.com Subject: Re: [sig-policy] FW: prop-100 National IP Address Plan - Allocation of country-wide IP address blocks To: email@example.com Cc: Rajesh.Shinde@relianceada.com, A.Mathur@relianceada.com Message-ID: OFD7E868B6.910219F6-ON652578F7.0051E317-652578F7.0053CDD4@LocalDomain
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
The prop-100 National IP Address Plan - Allocation of country-wide IP address blocks is welcomed with respect to following's,
1. Strategy of reserving large IP pool for ISP's & Organization within growing country on the basis of RIR objectives. 2. Proposal needs more clarity in terms of conservation & contiguity of IP address block like the primary goals of Aggregation (routability) so as to assist in maintenance of Internet routing tables at a manageable size to ensure continued operational stability of the Internet. 3. The policy & guidelines for establishing NIR as NGO should be addressed in the proposal or should be kept same as APNIC.
We accept the proposal with above corrections.
Regards / Milind. Network Planning & Engg. - Data Phone : 22-303 83921 RIM : 9322233904
Enjoy the widest reach of 3G services across India only On Reliance www.rcom.co.in/3G
The information contained in this electronic message (email) and any attachments to this email are intended for the exclusive use of the addressee(s) and access to this email by any one else is unauthorised. The email may contain proprietary, confidential or privileged information or information relating to Reliance Group. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender by telephone, fax, or return email and delete this communication and any attachments thereto, immediately from your computer. Any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication and the attachments thereto (in whole or part), in any manner, is strictly prohibited and actionable at law. The recipient acknowledges that emails are susceptible to alteration and their integrity can not be guaranteed and that Company does not guarantee that any e-mail is virus-free and accept no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this email.
- 4485 days inactive
- 4485 days old
- 1 participants
- 0 comments