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,
>>> Like it or not, the current APNIC assignment policy and the transfer policy allow /24 delegations.
>> In terms of the final /8, I do not believe this aspect of APNIC policies for transfers and
>> assignments should be replicated.
>> The facts are, unless some one propose to change, the /24 minimum transfer size
>> will remain in effect in the final /8 phase.
>I'm not seeing that as an issue.. Are you worried that those unscrupulous users of IP address
> space would take a /22 from the last /8 policy and the transfer it in chunks of /24 to people?
> Please clarify why the /24 transfer size in the final /8 is a problem?
I support /24 transfer size very much, Sir. Since you expressed strong objection to /24 allocation
size and don't want this 'be replicated' in the final /8, so I was just wondering if you will
propose to change /24 the minimum transfer size.
>>Sounds like you are more cautious about the costs than me, do you think matching a block
>> of IPv6 addresses to every IPv4 account holder for free will also cost $$ and number resources?
>I'm realistic about costs, efforts, benefits, and desired outcome.
Me too.
> But do remember that the motivation for that policy was about IPv6 deployment.
Transition is also a important part of deployment.
>What I am suggesting is that the industry will get far better use of those /22 allocations in the
> last /8 as for use in v6 transition without being chopped up and micromanaged into /24 slices.
It makes no sense to keep the last /8 immune from /24 delegations, while the dozens of
/8 allocated before the last /8 allowing /24 assignments.
Regards
Terence