Re: [sig-policy] prop-094: Adding alternative criteria to renumbering re

To: Izumi Okutani <izumi at nic dot ad dot jp>
Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-094: Adding alternative criteria to renumbering requirement in final /8 policy
From: Ren-Hung Hwang <rhhwang at gmail dot com>
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2011 10:25:55 +0800
Cc: sig-policy at apnic dot net
Delivered-to: sig-policy at mailman dot apnic dot net
List-archive: <http://mailman.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>

I think the intention of this proposal is good,

considering those new LIRs whose

assignments from the upstream are larger than /22.

But since it is an "OR" condition, what if

"APNIC can make sufficient allocation (s) to
a new LIR to compensate for address
space they returned to the upstream
assignments (for renumbering to allocated
space)?"

That is, one /22 is enough for the new LIR

(its assignment from the upstream < /22).

(or space less than one /22 is just too tiny to care about?)

I also agree with the disaggregation problem.

Ren-Hung