[sig-policy] Summary of discussion: prop-93

To: APNIC Policy SIG List <sig-policy at apnic dot net>
Subject: [sig-policy] Summary of discussion: prop-93
From: Gaurab Raj Upadhaya <gaurab at lahai dot com>
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 01:49:23 +0000
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>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101207 Thunderbird/3.1.7

Hash: SHA1

_______________________________________________________________________

prop-093: Reducing the minimum delegation size for the final /8 policy
_______________________________________________________________________

Dear SIG members

Below is a summary of discussions on the proposal to date. We encourage
you to continue discussions on the mailing list before the Policy
SIG.

Regards,

Gaurab, Ching-Heng, and Terence


Proposal summary
- ----------------

This is a proposal to change the minimum size of IPv4 delegations to a
/24 when the final /8 policy is activated.


Discussion statistics
- ---------------------

Version 1 posted to Policy SIG mailing list:   25 January 2011

Version 2 posted to Policy SIG mailing list:   18 February 2011

Number of posts since proposal first posted:   10

Number of people participating in discussions: 9


Summary of discussion to date
- -----------------------------

    - There was general support for this proposal

    - It was asked whether section 4.3 still requires the organization
      concerned to be an APNIC account holder?

    - There was concern about "Small multihoming assignments" being
      specified as grounds for a /24 unless it's explicitly associated
      with either Internet Exchange Points or Critical infrastructure.
      In response it was pointed out that new sites will require IPv4
      and that it should not be up to APNIC, or RIRs, to decide if they
      are 'worthy' of this.

          http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-093
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.16 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAk1kZ6MACgkQSo7fU26F3X2sxQCg1V9NENuOpoLDvGUPKFq/ISsv
Yt8An1tp0zAXG62iJ2aCYtF7gu9pBZcS
=Oxxm
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----