Dear Xing Li and all, My apologies for this late response as I've been traveling.To clarify the meaning of 'multiple discreet networks' such that the problem in prop-099 can be addressed, we would suggest to add a definition of 'discreet networks' to the IPv6 Guideline Document as follows:
Discreet Networks -----------------Where an organization demonstrates a compelling need, or requirement, to build discreet networks due to regulatory, geographic, or operational reasons and these multihomed networks are advertised either internally, or externally, with separate ASNs, the network may be defined by APNIC as being composed of discreet networks.
If this is accepted, we will modify the "APNIC guidelines for IPv6 allocation and assignment requests" (currently under the editorial comment period) accordingly.
http://www.apnic.net/community/policy/draft Regards, Sanjaya On 28/07/2012 5:32 PM, Xing Li wrote:
Hi, Dean, Dean Pemberton 写道:So it sounds like Sanjaya is saying that your objectives are possible within the current policies and that no additional policy is required to achieve these goals. In light if that is prop-99 still necessary?I agree to achieve the goal of 99 without change the current policy. I suggest APNIC clearly documents this description and make it openly accessible for the IPv6 address policy. I will refer to this description and drop prop-99. Thanks! Regards, xingRegards Dean On Tuesday, July 24, 2012, Xing Li wrote: This is exactly the proposal 99 trying to achieve. xing -- Regards, Dean