Keyboard Shortcuts
Thread View
j
: Next unread messagek
: Previous unread messagej a
: Jump to all threadsj l
: Jump to MailingList overview

----------------------------------------------------------------------- prop-053: Changing minimum IPv4 allocation size to /22 -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear colleagues
This is the final call for comments on policy proposal prop-053, 'Changing minimum IPv4 allocation size to /22'.
Version two of this proposal was presented at APNIC 25. Part one of the proposal which was related to the size of minimum allocation was accepted by consensus. Consensus was not sought on part two of the proposal as it was related to fees.
The proposal is now submitted to the Policy SIG mailing list for an eight-week discussion period. At the end of that period, if consensus appears to have been achieved, the Chair of the Policy SIG will ask the Executive Council to endorse the proposal for implementation.
* Send all comments and questions to: sig-policy@apnic.net * Deadline for comments: 29 April 2008
Proposal details ----------------
This is a proposal to change the minimum IPv4 allocation size from /21 to /22.
Proposal details including the full text of the proposal, presentations, links to relevant meeting archives and links to mailing list discussions are available at:

As a point of order, shouldn't the final call be made on a new version of the text that eliminates the references to fees and membership tiers, to reflect the changes made at the SIG meeting?
I don't think a final call should be made on a version of the document that is known to be different from the agreed proposal.
Regards,
David Woodgate
At 03:57 PM 4/03/2008, Toshiyuki Hosaka wrote:
prop-053: Changing minimum IPv4 allocation size to /22
Dear colleagues
This is the final call for comments on policy proposal prop-053, 'Changing minimum IPv4 allocation size to /22'.
Version two of this proposal was presented at APNIC 25. Part one of the proposal which was related to the size of minimum allocation was accepted by consensus. Consensus was not sought on part two of the proposal as it was related to fees.
The proposal is now submitted to the Policy SIG mailing list for an eight-week discussion period. At the end of that period, if consensus appears to have been achieved, the Chair of the Policy SIG will ask the Executive Council to endorse the proposal for implementation.
- Send all comments and questions to: sig-policy@apnic.net
- Deadline for comments: 29 April 2008
Proposal details
This is a proposal to change the minimum IPv4 allocation size from /21 to /22.
Proposal details including the full text of the proposal, presentations, links to relevant meeting archives and links to mailing list discussions are available at:
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-053-v002.html
sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management
policy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy

David Woodgate wrote:
As a point of order, shouldn't the final call be made on a new version of the text that eliminates the references to fees and membership tiers, to reflect the changes made at the SIG meeting?
I don't think a final call should be made on a version of the document that is known to be different from the agreed proposal.
I agree with David. The proposal needs to be updated to reflect the outcome of the discussion last week.
aj

Dear Alastair, and David,
Thank you for your comment. The Secretariat has contacted the author of the proposal to confirm the revised wording of the consensus version of proposal. We should have the revised version posted to the list within the next day or so. In the meantime, please feel free to provide feedback on the consensus element of version two of the proposal:
It is proposed that the minimum IPv4 allocation size be changed from /21 to /22.
thanks toshi --- Toshiyuki Hosaka
Alastair Johnson wrote (2008/03/04 15:22):
David Woodgate wrote:
As a point of order, shouldn't the final call be made on a new version of the text that eliminates the references to fees and membership tiers, to reflect the changes made at the SIG meeting?
I don't think a final call should be made on a version of the document that is known to be different from the agreed proposal.
I agree with David. The proposal needs to be updated to reflect the outcome of the discussion last week.
aj
sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy

Dear All,
An updated version of the policy proposal text that reflects the consensus decision in the APNIC 25 Policy SIG and endorsement by the APNIC Member Meeting is now available:
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-053-v003.html
Thanks and best regards, toshi --- Toshiyuki Hosaka
Toshiyuki Hosaka wrote:
Dear Alastair, and David,
Thank you for your comment. The Secretariat has contacted the author of the proposal to confirm the revised wording of the consensus version of proposal. We should have the revised version posted to the list within the next day or so. In the meantime, please feel free to provide feedback on the consensus element of version two of the proposal:
It is proposed that the minimum IPv4 allocation size be changed from /21 to /22.
thanks toshi
Toshiyuki Hosaka
Alastair Johnson wrote (2008/03/04 15:22):
David Woodgate wrote:
As a point of order, shouldn't the final call be made on a new version of the text that eliminates the references to fees and membership tiers, to reflect the changes made at the SIG meeting?
I don't think a final call should be made on a version of the document that is known to be different from the agreed proposal.
I agree with David. The proposal needs to be updated to reflect the outcome of the discussion last week.
aj
sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management
policy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy

Dear colleagues,
The APNIC Secretariat would like to clarify that if the proposal is approved at each remaining stage of the policy development process, the implementation would include an associated change in allocation criteria.
Two of the criteria for an initial allocation would be updated to show:
- An LIR must have used a /24 from their upstream provider or demonstrate an immediate need for a /24 - An LIR must demonstrate a detailed plan for use of a /23 within a year
The remaining two criteria for initial allocations and the criteria for subsequent IPv4 allocations would not be affected by this proposal.
The current initial allocation criteria are documented in Section 9.3 of APNIC-86, 'Policies for IPv4 address space management in the Asia Pacific region' at:
http://www.apnic.net/policy/add-manage-policy.html#9.3
Regards Sunny
-------------------------------------------------------------------- Srinivas Chendi email: sunny@apnic.net Policy Development Manager, APNIC sip: sunny@voip.apnic.net http://www.apnic.net phone: +61 7 3858 3189 ____________________________________________________________________
Toshiyuki Hosaka wrote:
Dear All,
An updated version of the policy proposal text that reflects the consensus decision in the APNIC 25 Policy SIG and endorsement by the APNIC Member Meeting is now available:
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-053-v003.html
Thanks and best regards, toshi
Toshiyuki Hosaka
Toshiyuki Hosaka wrote:
Dear Alastair, and David,
Thank you for your comment. The Secretariat has contacted the author of the proposal to confirm the revised wording of the consensus version of proposal. We should have the revised version posted to the list within the next day or so. In the meantime, please feel free to provide feedback on the consensus element of version two of the proposal:
It is proposed that the minimum IPv4 allocation size be changed from /21 to /22.
thanks toshi
Toshiyuki Hosaka
Alastair Johnson wrote (2008/03/04 15:22):
David Woodgate wrote:
As a point of order, shouldn't the final call be made on a new version of the text that eliminates the references to fees and membership tiers, to reflect the changes made at the SIG meeting?
I don't think a final call should be made on a version of the document that is known to be different from the agreed proposal.
I agree with David. The proposal needs to be updated to reflect the outcome of the discussion last week.
aj
sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management
policy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
Activity Summary
- 5679 days inactive
- 5679 days old
- sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
- 4 participants
- 5 comments