Re: [sig-policy] prop-081: Eligibility for assignments from the final /8
Thanks for your comments.
> as a polite request can you please distinguish your posts as either SIG chair or co-author when and where confusion might occur?
I will declare it very clear if there might be confusion.
> I really don't think that a differentiation of assignment or allocation is needed. It will require effort on the secretariat and it is simpler, easier and less burden to just >make the /22 call. Given the secretariat resources are member funded, I think any effort to reduce administrative work load is a good thing - which essentially >means the member gets the allocation faster.
As I said before, current policy permit assignments as well as allocations,
I don't see any extra administrative work load will be incurred if we keep
these assignments policy in the final /8 phase, let alone to say, some small
multihoming ,IXP and Critical infrastructure applicants may not be able to
justify a /22 requirement, so the current minimum assignment size is /24 or lower.
On 02/02/2010, at 7:15 PM, Terence Zhang YH(CNNIC) wrote:
> Prop-081 doesn't in any way violate the concept of
> give everyone a single small block of IPv4 from the final /8,
> It's just that under current final /8 policy it's impossible
> to make IPv4 addresses assignments to end users,
> we propose that change in order to makes it consistent in
> dealing with allocation and assignment in the final /8 phase.
> Current IPv4 policy permit assignments as well as allocations,
> I don't see any extra administrative work load will be incurred
> if we keep that consistence in the final /8 phase.
> I also don't think we should exclude assignments in the
> final /8 phase in order to reduce administrative work load.
> Terence Zhang
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Andy Linton" <asjl at lpnz dot org>
> To: <sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2010 11:04 AM
> Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-081: Eligibility for assignments from the final /8
>>> 2. Summary of the current problem
>>> The current final /8 policy , only permits allocations to account
>>> holders to be made. This means that during the final /8 phase, it will
>>> be impossible to make IPv4 addresses assignments to end users under
>>> multihoming, Internet Exchange Point (IXP) and Critical infrastructure
>>> From my recollection of the discussion around this policy we chose to
>> give everyone exactly the same size block (the minimum allocation size).
>> This was to make the process simple and fair - everybody got one more
>> allocation (in today's terms, a /22) when we got to the last /8 - no
>> ifs, no buts, no maybes.
>> I don't support this change which makes the administration of the policy
>> more complex.
>> * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
>> sig-policy mailing list
>> sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net
> * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
> sig-policy mailing list
> sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net