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

Hi Ray,

 

Thank you for this clarification and if you are here in APNIC meeting I'd like to meet you.

 

Thanks,

Haitham..

---

من: Ray Plzak [mailto:plzak@arin.net]
تاريخ الإرسال: الاثنين 9/3/2007 5:18 ص
إلى: Leo Vegoda; Hytham EL Nakhal
نسخة: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
الموضوع: RE: [sig-policy] رد: FW: prop-051: Global policy for the allocation ofthe remaining IPv4 address space

For the record, ARIN agreed that even if a request for address space showed that if it qualified for more than 2 /8s it would only accept 2 /8s as a fulfillment of that request. ARIN did not interpret this to mean that if it qualified for less than 2 /8s that it would expect to receive 2 /8s. This curtailed acceptance does not mean that ARIN will not request additional IPv4 address space as it needs it, nor will it curtail its regional allocations and assignments unless the ARIN community through the ARIN PDP directs it to do so.

Ray

> -----Original Message-----
> From: sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net [mailto:sig-policy-
> bounces@lists.apnic.net] On Behalf Of Leo Vegoda
> Sent: Sunday, September 02, 2007 6:58 AM
> To: Hytham EL Nakhal
> Cc: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
> Subject: Re: [sig-policy] رد: 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.
>
> 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
> *              sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy
> *
> _______________________________________________
> sig-policy mailing list
> sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy