Re: [sig-policy] prop-103-v001: A Final IP Address Policy Proposal

To: Dean Pemberton <dean at deanpemberton dot com>
Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-103-v001: A Final IP Address Policy Proposal
From: Aftab Siddiqui <aftab.siddiqui at gmail dot com>
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 11:41:24 +0500
Cc: Randy Bush <randy at psg dot com>, SIG policy <sig-policy at apnic dot net>
Delivered-to: sig-policy at mailman dot apnic dot net
In-reply-to: <CACfPNNRds9tXVsHmZXz9psuZOTFsetXbutcWgjOSoyO-69XUKw at mail dot gmail dot com>
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>
References: <CALS-_Oq-JomRRfk=G1+eVYVBHVq6uEAjvEgrw1TZ6PXO5oMmJA@mail.gmail.com> <AC9C4813-DB8C-48FF-B8B4-B9552EE04AD4@delong.com> <CACfPNNQNJxvSK3cqW=fT_rDHCT5ZBPGBFF0rsCFA3vwYoh9rrw@mail.gmail.com> <CACfPNNSJkB-igBZZN0a0i-48ZfN_p-G-aqx4UAwTKRBR7zxmAg@mail.gmail.com> <m2vchueyw9.wl%randy@psg.com> <CACfPNNR8xhkGzDYiJ61DMRSz05iF6aUKFQiposgyoOEJouGwVA@mail.gmail.com> <m2mx35g04r.wl%randy@psg.com> <CACfPNNRds9tXVsHmZXz9psuZOTFsetXbutcWgjOSoyO-69XUKw@mail.gmail.com>

I'm seeing people saying that there *may* be problems and that rather than dismissing this proposal we should consider what they might be. I think that's a valid thing to do.

This is what few people said during SANOG 20 in Karachi. But the thing is how to identify the problem which may or may not need to be resloved in IPv4 space.

3/ we do the same thing in a working group and add 6 months minimum to the process.

I totally agree on that.

Regards,

Aftab A. Siddiqui