In the context of this (and the other two proposals as well), will it
be useful to know how APNIC practices sparse allocation. APNIC
followed 'bisection' (or binary chop) for IPv4 untill it was not
possible.
If APNIC is already reserving a /24 worth of IPv6 address per
delegation, I think now we are simply debating whether that's a valid
number or not. Or whether it should do binary chop for v6 as well.
Paraphrasing from a note David Conrad sent to the RIPE address policy
WG, binary chop was also one of the reasons cited when RIRs received
the /12 from IANA. [1].
On 8/19/11 1:32 AM, Andy Linton wrote:
> I'm conscious that this proposal has had very little attention in
> the run up to the upcoming meeting - one person has expressed a
> view on it.
>
> This may be because people have been paying more attention to
> prop-100. I see this proposal addressing some of the questions
> raised by prop-100 in a different way.
>
> I'd encourage you to look at this proposal before the meeting in
> Busan.
>
> Regards, andy * 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