Hi again Satoru, and once more many thanks for the inputs, If we keep “it holds previously-allocated provider independent address space”, then it means an organization, for example, deploying only IPv6, will not be able to get an ASN. Or even an organization willing to get IPv4, can’t get it from APNIC. Should them then wait for available IPv4 space and not have their own ASN meanwhile? Or should they “promise” “I will multihome” and actually never do it? (there is no a concrete time term defined in the policy). Or going to the extreme. Should the organization get IPv4 PI, but actually not use it? Or should the organization request IPv6 PI today and tomorrow an ASN ? It is artificial! If we really want to ensure that those organizations multihome, we really need to fix in how much time, and that was already changed in proposal 114. I think this proposal improves that, going to the point where probably prop-114 wanted to be (but sometimes you need to go step by step …). In general, I don’t think restricting non-scarce resources as ASN is a good thing, and if that happens APNIC should report it back to the community and then we may consider it back. Current text is artificial in the sense that already prop-114 expressed. People can just lie “I will …”.
Jordi De: <sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net> en nombre de Satoru Tsurumaki <satoru.tsurumaki@g.softbank.co.jp> Dear Colleagues, I am Satoru Tsurumaki from Japan Open Policy Forum Steering Team. I would like to share a feedback in our community for prop-128, based on a meeting we organized on 12th Feb to discuss these proposals. Substantial support expressed, subject to not deleting the "it holds previously-allocated provider independent address space" described in the current policy text. * In this proposal, "it holds previously-allocated provider independent address space" is erased. it should keep it in order to prevent unnecessary application of AS number. * In the case of IPv6, the NAT disappears and the global address is assigned to all device in the organization. If each organization uses a PI address that is not locked in to a upper provider, there is a great merit that there is no need to procure the second transit. *There are areas where have only one transit as pointed out by the proposer. This proposal has the effect that policy conforms to the actual situation as a result. Best Regards, Satoru Tsurumaki JPOPF-ST 2019年1月22日(火) 9:14 Bertrand Cherrier <b.cherrier@micrologic.nc>:
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it. |