Re: [sig-policy] prop-106-v001: Restricting excessive IPv4 address trans
Thank you very much for posting this modified version of prop-106 for
I believe that you have made significant improvements over the first
version, in particular around the implementation details suggested.
I still do not believe that these issues exist in such a large scale
that a full policy is required. I think that the approach you have
taken around clarifying intent of the final /8 policy and providing
the APNIC hostmasters and NIRs with additional guidance which they can
refer to is a much better way to address these concerns.
I would encourage you along with the rest of the community to talk
about the following questions.
1) What is the 'spirit of the final /8' and can we all agree on a
version which could be used in a written guideline
2) Does the community feel it is appropriate to provide APNIC
hostmasters and NIRs with some language with which they can use to
assess transfers under the final /8
3) Is there some other way to accomplish the same thing? Would
providing more information about the participants involved in final /8
transfers effect a similar outcome?
Thank you for your efforts.
On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 9:51 AM, Tomohiro -INSTALLER- Fujisaki/藤崎 智宏
<fujisaki at syce dot net> wrote:
> Hi all,
> We revised our proposal as attached.
> # We've already sent this updated text to the Secretariat, and will
> # be published soon.
> We're really appreciate if you give us any comments.
> Yours Sincerely,
> Tomohiro Fujiaki