| | | | | | | | |
|
|
|
You're here: Home |
I support the general principle of prop-063 on the basis that it seems like a reasonable approach to seeking increased scrutiny of address requests as we approach IPv4 exhaustion.
Having said that, there are a couple of things I'd like to check about the draft:
My understanding of the current 12-month specification is that it is a *maximum* scope for a request, and not a minimum - that is, an APNIC member can choose to submit multiple requests per year but with each request to meet an address demand shorter than 12 months, rather than just submitting one 12-month-duration request per year.
I assume that this draft also represents a *maximum* timeframe for a request of 6 months, but that shorter timeframes are acceptable? If this is the case, could the draft please be adjusted to reflect that, as I don't think it is clear from the current wording?
Also, is anyone able to comment on whether an assessment has been done on the likely additional workload that this policy would generate for APNIC staff?
Regards, David Woodgate
