[sig-policy] رد: رد: FW: prop-051: Global policy for the allocation ofthe remaining IPv4 address space

["Hytham EL Nakhal" <hytham@mcit.gov.eg>]

Title: Re: ÑÏ: [sig-policy] FW: prop-051: Global policy for the allocation ofthe remaining IPv4 address space

Hi Leo,

 

Thank you for prompt reply, Kindly find my answers between lines hereunder.

 

Best Regards,

Haitham..

---

ãä: Leo Vegoda [mailto:leo.vegoda@icann.org]
ÊÇÑíÎ ÇáÅÑÓÇá: ÇáÇÍÏ 9/2/2007 1:57 ã
Åáì: Hytham EL Nakhal
äÓÎÉ: Roque Gagliano; sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
ÇáãæÖæÚ: Re: ÑÏ: [sig-policy] FW: prop-051: Global policy for the allocation ofthe remaining IPv4 address space

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.
Yup, you are right It's a gentlemen's agreemnet indeed.
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.
So that I'm here in APNIC to discuss it more face to face , Thank you for noting.
Regards,

Leo Vegoda