Sent from my BlackBerry® smartphone from Tata Indicom
From: Aftab Siddiqui <email@example.com>
Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2012 10:24:27 +0500
To: Naresh Ajwani<firstname.lastname@example.org>
Cc: Terence Zhang YH<email@example.com>; Ren-Hung Hwang<firstname.lastname@example.org>; SIG policy<email@example.com>
Subject: Re: [sig-policy] Proposal 99
Naresh Sb, Actually Sanjaya mentioned the following.
" can we use section 5.3.3's "except where separate disaggregated ranges are requested for multiple discreet networks" to allow APNIC hostmasters to hand out multiple prefixes to these very large networks?"
IMHO prop-099 is just a Hostmaster's operational function and can be addressed without a policy on case to case basis. Kindly correct me if I'm wrong.
Aftab A. Siddiqui
> Sorry Aftab, I have missed out this suggestion, wud u mind sharing the same please? > > Regards & best wishes, > Naresh Ajwani > On 20-Jul-2012, at 3:52 PM, Aftab Siddiqui <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > Hi Terence, > >> >> >> In the above example, sparse allocation tries to ensure the 2*/32 are contiguous, >> but prop-099 tries to ensure the 2*/34 are contiguous.
>> > > > I believe thats not the case because lets say if initially they got 2001:db8::/32 and they allocated /34 each for 4 pops > e.g. > 2001:db8::/34 > 2001:db8:4000::/34
> 2001:db8:8000::/34 > 2001:db8:c000::/34 > > right? > > Now for the subsequent allocation the prefix they will get can't make 2*/34 contiguous. So any POP is growing than they either have to renumber or use 2 discontiguous /34. Correct me if I misinterpret.
> > Nevertheless, I don't support this proposal. And for the corner cases Sanjaya's suggestion is fine. > > Regards, > > Aftab A. Siddiqui > > > * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
> _______________________________________________ > sig-policy mailing list > email@example.com > http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy