Re: [sig-policy] prop-099-v002: IPv6 Reservation for Large Networks
> Dear Xing Li,
>
> On Feb 1, 2012, at 6:35 pm, Xing Li wrote:
>
> […]
>>>
>> The "slow start policy" itself is not an issue. The issue is that the reserved IPv6 address pool is only considered for TWO years. If we can expend the time window to five years or even ten years, there should be no problem for the slow start policy.
>
> Thank you for the explanation. It had not occurred to me that two years would meet the minimized overhead requirements set out in section 3.7 of the policy. It would be interesting if the Secretariat could explain how the policy requirements in 3.7 were implemented as accommodating just two year's planned growth.
>
> Regards,
>
> Leo Vegoda
Hi Leo and all,
While clause 3.7 sets the overall goal of the policy, on a practical
level APNIC Secretariat is bound by clause 5.3.3 that directs us to
either double the previous allocation upon receiving a qualified
subsequent request, or if needing more than that, we can
look at the requestor's 2 year future requirement. Also, clause 5.3.3
currently has no reference to 'reservation', which is the issue being
discussed here.
If I read it correctly, prop-099 is targeted at amending clause 5.3.3.
Regards,
Sanjaya
Services Director, APNIC