Re: [sig-policy] prop-101 Returned to mailing list and Newversion posted

To: "Randy Bush" <randy at psg dot com>, "David Woodgate" <dwoodgate5 at gmail dot com>
Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-101 Returned to mailing list and Newversion posted
From: "Terence Zhang YH" <zhangyinghao at cnnic dot cn>
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 18:58:53 +0800
Cc: sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net
Delivered-to: sig-policy at mailman dot apnic dot net
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: <AB8B3EC7241D4F9E98B01E494B0845C4@bb.local><CALS-_OrLvxxgPt73AiqWPH_9Akuonz7PXzMks_VbkXsVDPEtYg@mail.gmail.com><CACfPNNSsbtEGvRiWmmu1x2ErM4cLzwD+t+3wG0RVFRQUgGD=MQ@mail.gmail.com><CAMCFpiA1nzEK5KfL-n7xD1A+DbXACdHgJC8DZ7LNUB0s0aPNsw@mail.gmail.com><4FE09BD6.5060902@verizon.com><CALS-_Orjq2MZeV10HXiTdY89KdmyXWqD9CAEVf+oO5wziOcZOA@mail.gmail.com><4FF2652C.2030909@apnic.net><CALS-_Oq2rWQnN47inbKBSWq9ST_AxBrPgMQoc7uuQZPb4pC-Lg@mail.gmail.com><5020BEC2.2050307@gmail.com><008e01cd7514$f6cd5560$266df1da@laptop4j><50227D8A.3010606@gmail.com> <m2r4rg841p.wl%randy@psg.com>

Hi, Randy, 

If most organizations use provider assigned address space instead of /48 portable assignment, 
they are not necessarily gonna dump their entry in the routing table, is that correct?

So, it's not about placing a barrier to entry in the market, it's placing a barrier to entry in the
routing table.

Regards
Terence

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Randy Bush" <randy at psg dot com>
To: "David Woodgate" <dwoodgate5 at gmail dot com>
Cc: "Terence Zhang YH" <zhangyinghao at cnnic dot cn>; <sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net>
Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2012 11:42 PM
Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-101 Returned to mailing list and Newversion posted


> so tell me, if ipv6 space is effectively infinite, and they are gonna
> dump their entry in the routing table anyway, why do we need all this
> nit-picking detiled policy?
> 
> or, in other terms, what is the win in placing a barrier to entry in the
> market?
>