Re: [sig-policy] prop-045: Proposal to modify "end site"definition and a

To: jordi.palet at consulintel dot es
Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-045: Proposal to modify "end site"definition and allow end sites to receive IPv6 allocations
From: Leo Vegoda <leo.vegoda at icann dot org>
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 17:18:44 +0100
Cc: "sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net" <sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net>
In-reply-to: <C1DD0826.18C4EB%jordi.palet at consulintel dot es>
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: <C1DD0826.18C4EB%jordi.palet@consulintel.es>

Hi Jordi,

I agree that making address space available to networks that need it

is good. My concern isn't the goal but the phrasing of the policy. I

think the proposal is phrased in a way that would allow almost any

organisation where one department 'bills' another for a service to

qualify for a /32 allocation. You implied that the membership fees

are the main deterrent. As the APNIC Fees WG is reviewing the fee

structure I think it might not be a good idea to rely on it when

designing policy.

I think your goal is to ensure that multi-site enterprise networks

can receive portable address space from APNIC. If that is the case,

maybe it would be useful to ensure that 'site' is less vaguely

defined and change the policy to allow multi-site networks under

common ownership and operation to qualify for an allocation?


Regards,

--
Leo Vegoda
IANA Numbers Liaison