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,
xing
Regards
Dean
On Tuesday, July 24, 2012, Xing Li wrote:
This is exactly the proposal 99 trying to achieve. xing
--
Regards,
Dean
* 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