Re: [sig-policy] APNIC 18 Proposal

To: pfs at cisco dot com
Subject: Re: [sig-policy] APNIC 18 Proposal
From: (Tomohiro -INSTALLER-Fujisaki/藤崎智宏 )<fujisaki@syce.net>
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 14:30:10 +0900 (JST)
Cc: sig-policy at apnic dot net
In-reply-to: <5.1.0.14.2.20040816095620.04bbdd48@localhost>
List-archive: <http://www.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-policy>
List-help: <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=help>
List-id: APNIC SIG on resource management policy <sig-policy.lists.apnic.net>
List-post: <mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net>
List-subscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy>,<mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy>,<mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=unsubscribe>
References: <5.1.0.14.2.20040805132218.00b2f2a0@localhost><20040805.150059.719887256.fujisaki@syce.net><5.1.0.14.2.20040816095620.04bbdd48@localhost>

Hi Philip,

 | Just for interest, have organisations had the problem you describe for 
 | LIR-A above, or are you simply trying to pre-empt a situation which is very 
 | much expected to happen in the near future?  I can certainly see how it 
 | would give LIR-B an unintended advantage.

A bit different situation from my example, but I've heard an ISP want
to expand their address space because their service scenario changed
when they had requested initially. And there are some LIRs in JP
region that want to expand their address space if possible.

Yours sincerely

--
Tomohiro Fujisaki, Nippon Telegraph and Telephone Corportion