| | | | | | | | |
|
|
|
You're here: Home |
Dear Hytham, On 2 Sep 2007, at 12:26, Hytham EL Nakhal wrote:
Dear Leo,Yes it's clear in the policy text and we know that. but David Conrad have said in previous email the following: My rationale for preferring N=2 is that is the size of allocation IANA is doing now as requested by the RIRs. So, I think that happen upon agreement between RIRs and IANA .. the question now is what do you think about N=2 Is it more suitable as last allocation ?
I wouldn't call it an agreement between IANA and the RIRs. Instead, I would describe it as a gentlemen's agreement between the RIRs that use less space and the RIRs that use more space not to request more than two /8s at any one time. An RIR that does not qualify for at least two /8s under the current policy cannot receive two /8s under the current policy.
I am not worried about the actual size of the final allocation proposed in policies of this type. I think it is more important that this proposal could be a change away from allocations made on a basis of demonstrated need. Up until now, RIRs, ISPs, end users and so on all got the resources they demonstrated they needed but not more. I would be strongly in favour of a good analysis of the needs in each RIR's service region. It is a shame that prop-051-v001 has less than three lines of text discussing the impact of this proposal on the APNIC region.
Regards, Leo Vegoda
