Andy,
Thanks for your comments.
I understand ARIN & RIPE has /28-/24 or /27 (propose)
allocation size and they allow subsequent allocation.
I think an allocation size </24 may creat too many
routes in the global routing table, we do not want to
create longer prefixes in the Internet routing table
just because of this policy; and based on the knowledge
of current Internet's route filtering culture, we believe
/24 is the most generally accepted longest prefix currently.
That's why we proposed /24 allocation size in version1,
now taken into account people's worries about
/24 is too small and subsequent allocations are not necessary
and it is too complicated... we think it's better to
make it simple, just propose adding IPv6 requirements
in the final /8 allocations.
Regards
Terence
----- Original Message -----
From: "Andy Linton" asjl@lpnz.org
To: sig-policy@apnic.net
Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 4:41 AM
Subject: Re: [sig-policy] Prop-78 'Reserving /10 IPv4 address space to facilitate IPv6 deployment' Comments
Terence,
I'd also like to ask about minimum and maximum allocation sizes. The
ARIN policy has a /28 minimum and a /24 maximum for the /10 they plan to
set aside. The RIPE policy proposes that the final /8 should use a /27
minimum which they note is 'downscaling the current minimum allocation
size /21'.
Do you envisage such changes to APNIC policy in conjunction with your
proposal?
andy
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
