Just for the avoidance of any doubt, I
completely agree with Owen's position on this matter.
To reiterate:
·
I can accept that
sparse allocations already made on /29 boundaries can be
expanded to fill the entire /29, if there is no room to expand
them to a /28.
·
I do not agree that any
new/ 29 allocations should be made, the next size above /32
should be /28
Regards
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net
[mailto:sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net] On Behalf Of
Owen DeLong
Sent: Thursday, 18 September 2014 6:16 a.m.
To: "(Tomohiro -INSTALLER- Fujisaki/藤崎
智宏)"
Cc: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-111-v004: Request-based
expansion of IPv6 default allocation size
Yes, I still feel it misses my point
completely.
I have no problem with expanding the
existing reservations which are bounded at /29 to /29.
I don’t want to see us move the default
allocation in the sparse allocation world to larger than /32.
Larger than /32 should require additional justification for
those blocks.
Further, I don’t want to see us creating
a default at a non-nibble boundary. For organizations that
show need for larger than a /32, I would support a default of
/28, but will continue to oppose a default expansion to /29.
Owen
On Sep 16, 2014, at 6:59 PM, (Tomohiro
-INSTALLER- Fujisaki/藤崎
智宏) <fujisaki@syce.net>
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Thank you so much for your
comments.
>
> Here, just I would like to confirm,
>
> | 1.
unrestricted issuance of /29s to every organization regardless
of needs.
>
> I've added some texts that LIRs
would like to to obtain a additional
> block larger than /32 need to
demonstrate their needs in version 3
> (prop-111-v003).
>
>> From the mail I sent on 1st
August:
> |
> | I submitted revised version of:
> | “prop-111: Request-based
expansion of IPv6 default allocation size"
> |
> | At the last policy sig
discussion, I got concern about address
> | allocation without any
constraint, and some criteria should be added
> | to expand the block size.
> |
> | In this revised proposal, I added
the requirement to demonstrate
> | need for both initial and
subsequent allocations to reflect such opinions.
> |
> | For initial allocation:
> | > The organizations
> | > can receive up to /29
by providing utilization information of the whole
> | > address space.
> |
> | For subsequent allocation:
> | > LIRs that hold one or
more IPv6 allocations are able to request
> | > extension of each of
these allocations up to a /29 without meeting
> | > the utilization rate
for subsequent allocation by explaining
> | > how the whole address
space will be used.
>
> # The wording is slightly different
from latest (v004) version.
>
> Do you think corrent text is not
enough?
>
> Yours Sincerely,
> --
> Tomohiro Fujisaki
> * 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
The information contained in this Internet Email message is
intended for the addressee only and may contain privileged
information, but not necessarily the official views or opinions
of the New Zealand Defence Force. If you are not the intended
recipient you must not use, disclose, copy or
distribute this message or the information in it. If you have
received this message in error, please Email or telephone the
sender immediately.
