Thanks for sharing the data, Terence.
The figures are larger than I expected - I suppose they are mostly for
multi-homed?
I think a couple of people on the mailing list feel we shouldn't add
complications to the current /8 policy for the needs that seem to be
quite nitch. My impression is they are not so concerned about the
consumption of /8.
I also prefer to stick to the current simple criteria if the idea is "we
allow it now so it's better to give them too", but don't have a problem
about changing it if they are really the needs we should meet.
IMO, assignments for critical infrastrucuture should be secured at
least, which can probably be accomodated within the reserved /16.
For the others, I'm still not sure if there will be major problems
without it.
Izumi/JPNIC
Terence Zhang YH(CNNIC) wrote:
Disclaimer: the comments below reflect the views of the proposal authors and
have NO link to co-chair's opinion about this proposal
The final /8 provides 16384 allocations with /22 size,
we currently have only about 2200 members,
consider each account holder only get one allocation from the final /8,
there is no reason to beleive we should exclude
Critical infrastructure/IXP/Multihoming applicants
from the final /8 because of lacking IPv4 space.
They only take up one share from the 16384 delegations
as all LIRs do.
Regards
Terence
CNNIC
----- Original Message -----
From: "Seiichi Kawamura" kawamucho@mesh.ad.jp
To: "Terence Zhang YH(CNNIC)" zhangyinghao@cnnic.cn
Cc: "Randy Bush" randy@psg.com; "Izumi Okutani" izumi@nic.ad.jp; sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 10:45 AM
Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-081: Eligibility for assignments fromthe final /8
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Terence Zhang YH(CNNIC) wrote:
Disclaimer: the comments below reflect the views of the proposal authors and
have NO link to co-chair's opinion about this proposal
Critical infrastructure/IXP/Multihoming applicants may not be able to justify a /22 requirement,
currently half of the assignments made in AP region is /24, besides that, the criterias for
allocations and assignments are some how different.
We currently allow allocations and assignments, but prop-062 only allow allocations.
We are not trying to fulfil every needs, just try to be fair and consistent.
Fairness is a good idea, but
you are looking at specific needs.
The current final /8 policy to me seems
the most fair.
IMHO consistency ends when that last /8 is
handed to RIRs. No more IPv4. nada.
Regards,
Seiichi
Regards
Terence
CNNIC
----- Original Message -----
From: "Randy Bush" randy@psg.com
To: "Izumi Okutani" izumi@nic.ad.jp
Cc: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2010 9:52 PM
Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-081: Eligibility for assignments fromthe final /8
< chair hat = off >
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.
ixps, multi-homed networks, etc. are precisely the users expected for
prop-062. so why is the final /8 olicy not satisfactory for them all
of a sudden?
let us remember, we will be out of ipv4 space. we will simply not be
able to fulfil every need.
randy
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
iEYEARECAAYFAkuEkq4ACgkQcrhTYfxyMkIWrQCfc1t8jqBKLbMzTuwKGfhXf4S3
g0wAni2wMCuamrkifCfmXQjDddAx7rWw
=mKwl
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
