Re: [sig-policy] prop-045: Proposal to modify "end site"definition and a
I don't think this will create an explosion in the demand for prefixes for
any kind of organizations. I expect that only those organizations that have
a real need and can pay for the membership/space will go for it.
Moreover, the existing policies only allow that for organizations which are
multihomed. There is an example already in the policy proposal for a big
university. Especially in developing regions, it is easy to find those
entities not being multihomed, because they can't simply pay for that and at
the same time, they may need to change the upstream provider every time
there is a better deal. So the need is real, in my opinion.
Under those considerations, I think is fair to allow those organizations to
obtain the addressing space.
So trying to answer your question, no, the intend is not to allow *any*
organization, just everyone that has the need.
In think in a previous meeting the staff was asked about how many
organizations tried to get a prefix in cases similar to this, and the number
was very low (not sure if it was just a couple of them). May be with this
policy proposal, if it becomes accepted by the community, the number can be
10 times the number of rejections. Still a low number, and clearly not
creating a dramatic increase.
Regards,
Jordi
> De: Leo Vegoda <leo.vegoda at icann dot org>
> Responder a: <sig-policy-bounces at lists dot apnic dot net>
> Fecha: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 15:24:03 +0100
> Para: <sig-policy at apnic dot net>
> Asunto: Re: [sig-policy] prop-045: Proposal to modify "end site"definition and
> allow end sites to receive IPv6 allocations
>
> Jordi,
>
> I am not sure I understand the intention behind your proposal
> properly. You seem to want to broaden the definition of "end site" to
> include multi-site networks and allow allow this kind of end site to
> qualify for an allocation when they will provide connectivity to
> 'sites' within their own organisation.
>
> Allowing organisations that only make internal assignments to qualify
> for a /32 allocation would make dramatically increase the number of
> organisations who qualify. I think almost any organisation with
> multiple departments and internal contracts could qualify for a /32
> allocation. Is that your intention or have I misunderstood you?
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> Leo Vegoda
> IANA Numbers Liaison
>
>
> * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy
> *
> _______________________________________________
> sig-policy mailing list
> sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net
> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
**********************************************
The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org
Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 !
http://www.ipv6day.org
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.