[sig-policy] Re: Presentation for the Address Policy SIG

[Izumi Okutani <izumi@nic.ad.jp>]

Hi Anne,


> Just to be clear (I am not sure if we misunderstand each other) 
> a /64 is currently assigned for IXP-1, the next /64 for IXP-2 and so 
> forth. all this is from a reserved /32 which is 2001:07FA::/32 for all IXPs. 
> I suddenly got the feeling my previous comment wasnt clear and you 
> understood each IXP gets a /32 reserved for them.  Sorry for any confusion.
>
Yes, I understand about this. Thanks for making it more clear.


Izumi

From: Anne Lord <anne@apnic.net>
Subject: Re: Presentation for the Address Policy SIG
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 16:53:36 +1000 (EST)

> 
> Izumi,
> 
> > As you have suggested, I think the terms "gTLD/ccTLC registries" and
> > "NIR" avoids any confusion, so I will use them in my presentation.
> > 
> > > > >     i. /48 should be assigned to IX
> > > > >       Pros
> > > > >        - Can be assigned out of /32 reserved for IX assignments
> > >
> > >Just for your information current assignments are from a reserved /32.
> > I see. Thanks for letting me know.
> > 
> > In that case, I will remove this statement since the assignment size
> > makes no big difference in this respect.
> 
> Just to be clear (I am not sure if we misunderstand each other) 
> a /64 is currently assigned for IXP-1, the next /64 for IXP-2 and so 
> forth. all this is from a reserved /32 which is 2001:07FA::/32 for all IXPs. 
> I suddenly got the feeling my previous comment wasnt clear and you 
> understood each IXP gets a /32 reserved for them.  Sorry for any confusion.
>   
> > > > >        - all IXs will receive the same assignment size throughout the
> > > > >          world
> > > > >        - it is the minumum size to be registered into DB
> > > > >       Cons
> > > > >        - Assignments have already been made
> > > > >        - /64 could meet the needs sufficiently
> > >
> > >It might be worth adding whether or not you plan to upgrade existing /64
> > >holders into /48's - this would currently require renumbering as the
> > >assignments are sequential.
> > Yes, that is a good point.
> > 
> > I will note in the presentation that the existing /64 holders may ask
> > for an upgrade but renumbering would be required.
>   
> Seems a good idea.ie. give them the option.
> 
> > > > >    iii./48 should be assigned to gTLD/ccTLD DNS
> >  <snip>
> > > > >      Pros
> > > > >       - Can be assigned out of /32 reserved for this purpose
> >  <snip>
> > >What was the reasoning behind making the DNS assignments from two
> > >separate reserved /32's? Could they be made from the same reserved
> > >/32 to simplify filters etc.
> > Sorry, this was simply the problem with the way I phrased it.
> > 
> > My intention was to make assignments from the same reserved /32 as you
> > have suggested. I will rephrase it as "Can be assigned out of /32
> > reserved for micro allocations".
>   
> Ah yes. sounds good. 
> 
> Best wishes,
> 
> Anne
> --
> 
> 
*              sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy           *
* To unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe" to sig-policy-request@apnic.net *