Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal ] prop-112: On demand expansion of
> On Feb 23, 2015, at 13:00 , Dean Pemberton <dean at internetnz dot net dot nz> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 7:13 AM, Masato Yamanishi <myamanis at gmail dot com> wrote:
>
>> Q1. Is the benefit larger than the concern or not?
>
> What benefit? I'm not seeing one here.
> As far as I can see there is nothing stopping an LIR with one of these
> historical allocations (a /32 for example) coming back to APNIC,
> requesting more address space, demonstrating need, and being allocated
> that additional space.
>
> What this proposal seems to be advocating is that each of the LIRs be
> 'gifted' up to a /29 without having to demonstrate any need what so
> ever.
>
> I oppose this policy on those grounds alone.
>
> If the policy were to place a needs based assessment on the LIR, then
> the proposal would not be required at all and we would be able to
> proceed under the rules we have today.
>
>> Q2. Does the alternative solution proposed by Owen resolve this problem
>> also?
>>
>
> Owen's solution is available to people today.
>
> eg, If I have a /32 and I want to grow this to a /28 but there is only
> a /29 possible under the allocation models, then I can request a /28
> from a different block and renumber into it, returning the /32. I
> believe people have been doing similar things in the IPv4 world for a
> while.
>
> In it's current form the policy is either not required (members can
> get additional allocations if required), or a dangerous precident
> (removal of needs based allocation for IPv6).
>
> I do not support this proposal in it's current form.
>
> Dean
+1 to most of what Dean says.
My point is that if you need more than a /32, then you should be able to get a /28 rather than having to make a /[29..31] work.
I would like to see RIR allocations and assignments done on nibble boundaries.
Owen