Re: [sig-policy] prop-081: Eligibility for assignments from the final /8
Disclaimer: the comments below reflect the views of the proposal authors and
have NO link to co-chair's opinion about this proposal
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi, Terry,
Thanks for your comments, pls see our comments below:
>The policy as written says /22. I personally would loath /24s or anything smaller being created >by policy for this. There is no need.
Like it or not, the current APNIC assignment policy and the transfer policy allow /24 delegations.
>The policy as it stands does this. Adding extra work for the secretariat in allowing smaller >allocations assignments is simply more ipv4 work.
But that's exactly what we are doing currently, allowing assignments.
>> So, which one do you assume not require IPv4 address in the last /8?
>Glibly, all of them, and any of that list who does, should probably no longer be considered Critical infrastructure.
And multihoming & IXP don't need IPv4 addresses from the last /8 too?
>> the current APNIC assignment policy and the transfer policy allow /24 delegations,
>> let alone to say, ARIN will be doing /28 minimum delegation in their final /8 and
>> RIPE is proposing a /27 minimum delegation in their final /8.
>Good for them (And I look forward to all the nanog posts about routing /28s and /27s).
>But do we need to? I think not.
I don't mean we should copy every thing from other RIR, just to show that /24 is also
an applicable size.
Regards
Terence Zhang