>Message: 7
>Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2012 10:51:31 +1200
>From: Dean Pemberton <dean at deanpemberton dot com>
>Subject: Re: [sig-policy] Proposal 99
>To: Xing Li xing at cernet dot edu dot cn
>Cc: "sig-policy at apnic dot net SIG List" <sig-policy at apnic dot net>
>Message-ID:
> <CACfPNNSQ-8oS3K0GmdR3EDLYrF18Cf=9LThcsvJCTLvUvUqPkg at mail dot gmail dot com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
>Thank you for that reference.
>
>The example in your slides shows a situation where a /27 is required
>over a multi year period but that under the current system this is
>allocated as two /29s and a /28. Your presentation claims that this
>causes problems with non-optimal network design.
>I am interested to hear from Sanjaya or the hostmasters if this would
>actually be a problem in reality.
>
>If I were a member who came to APNIC with comprehensive documentation
>showing a network rollout over 5 years which needed a /27, would this
>be allocated under provisions in the following section of
>apnic-089-v010
>
>------
>5.2.3 Larger initial allocations
>Initial allocations larger than /32 may be justified if:
>
>a) The organization provides comprehensive documentation of planned
>IPv6 infrastructure which would require a larger allocation;
>------
>
>In other words, if I can show that I have a need for larger network,
>can this be currently addressed without the need to change policy.
>
>Regards,