Re: [sig-policy] prop-081: Eligibility for assignments from the final /8
The figures are larger than I expected - I suppose they are mostly for
multi-homed?
I think a couple of people on the mailing list feel we shouldn't add
complications to the current /8 policy for the needs that seem to be
quite nitch. My impression is they are not so concerned about the
consumption of /8.
I also prefer to stick to the current simple criteria if the idea is "we
allow it now so it's better to give them too", but don't have a problem
about changing it if they are really the needs we should meet.
IMO, assignments for critical infrastrucuture should be secured at
least, which can probably be accomodated within the reserved /16.
For the others, I'm still not sure if there will be major problems
without it.
Izumi/JPNIC
Terence Zhang YH(CNNIC) wrote:
> Disclaimer: the comments below reflect the views of the proposal authors and
> have NO link to co-chair's opinion about this proposal
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> The final /8 provides 16384 allocations with /22 size,
> we currently have only about 2200 members,
> consider each account holder only get one allocation from the final /8,
> there is no reason to beleive we should exclude
> Critical infrastructure/IXP/Multihoming applicants
> from the final /8 because of lacking IPv4 space.
>
> They only take up one share from the 16384 delegations
> as all LIRs do.
>
> Regards
>
> Terence
> CNNIC
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Seiichi Kawamura" <kawamucho at mesh dot ad dot jp>
> To: "Terence Zhang YH(CNNIC)" <zhangyinghao at cnnic dot cn>
> Cc: "Randy Bush" <randy at psg dot com>; "Izumi Okutani" <izumi at nic dot ad dot jp>; <sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net>
> Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 10:45 AM
> Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-081: Eligibility for assignments fromthe final /8
>
>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> Terence Zhang YH(CNNIC) wrote:
>>> Disclaimer: the comments below reflect the views of the proposal authors and
>>> have NO link to co-chair's opinion about this proposal
>>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Critical infrastructure/IXP/Multihoming applicants may not be able to justify a /22 requirement,
>>> currently half of the assignments made in AP region is /24, besides that, the criterias for
>>> allocations and assignments are some how different.
>>>
>>> We currently allow allocations and assignments, but prop-062 only allow allocations.
>>>
>>> We are not trying to fulfil every needs, just try to be fair and consistent.
>> Fairness is a good idea, but
>> you are looking at specific needs.
>> The current final /8 policy to me seems
>> the most fair.
>>
>> IMHO consistency ends when that last /8 is
>> handed to RIRs. No more IPv4. nada.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Seiichi
>>
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>> Terence
>>> CNNIC
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Randy Bush" <randy at psg dot com>
>>> To: "Izumi Okutani" <izumi at nic dot ad dot jp>
>>> Cc: <sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net>
>>> Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2010 9:52 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-081: Eligibility for assignments fromthe final /8
>>>
>>>
>>>> < chair hat = off >
>>>>
>>>>> I think it could be possible that there will be needs for these
>>>>> assignments if there is a new gTLD/ccTLD set up as critical
>>>>> infrastructure, and we could also have new IXPs or multi-homed
>>>>> networks. We constantly make 3-4 assignments/year for these use
>>>>> within JP.
>>>> ixps, multi-homed networks, etc. are precisely the users expected for
>>>> prop-062. so why is the final /8 olicy not satisfactory for them all
>>>> of a sudden?
>>>>
>>>> let us remember, we will be out of ipv4 space. we will simply not be
>>>> able to fulfil every need.
>>>>
>>>> randy
>>>> * 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
>>> * 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
>>>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
>>
>> iEYEARECAAYFAkuEkq4ACgkQcrhTYfxyMkIWrQCfc1t8jqBKLbMzTuwKGfhXf4S3
>> g0wAni2wMCuamrkifCfmXQjDddAx7rWw
>> =mKwl
>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> * 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