At 15:00 05/08/2004 +0900, Tomohiro -INSTALLER- wrote:
Thanks for replying, and for clarifying. I wonder if I misread the original proposal, as your clarification explains the point I was trying to understand.Thank you very much for your comments, and very sorry for ambiguousness of my sentence.
Ah yes, for subsequent allocations. Okay! :-)My proposal is for `existing IPv6 address holders' which have already applied and got IPv6 address from APNIC (most of them have got /32). I don't say /32 is too small for every LIR, nor current policy does not allow to allocate larger space than /32. I want to fill the gap for new applicant and existing IPv6 address holders. Let me show an example: A-1. LIR-A got a /32 IPv6 address space two years ago. A-2. One years ago, they began IPv6 service trial for 300 customers. A-3. They have a plan to begin commercial service in six months. A-4. (I guess) LIR-A cannot expand their address space at this point because they do not satisfy subsequent allocation requirement. A-5. (I guess) LIR-A can apply to expand their address space only when number of their customers reaches the subsequent allocation criteria. While, B-1. LIR-B will start their commercial service, and apply IPv6 address for the first time. B-2. They can get enough address for their needs (e.g. /24) if they can show their concrete plan. B-3. LIR-B can start commercial service with the address /24.