[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [sig-policy] prop-061-v001: 32-bit ASNs for documentation purposes
David Woodgate said the following on 15/7/08 14:01:
But at APNIC 25, prop-058 was abandoned principally on the basis that
the resources allocated by IANA to APNIC must be assigned to end
users for public Internet purposes to meet the terms of agreement
between IANA and APNIC, and that that did not allow for reservation
of resources by APNIC for non-Internet or shared regional use.
prop-58 was asking for at least one /8 out of what was approx 40 /8s
remaining. Deep impact. Out of the 40 /8s, APNIC would probably only
receive around 12. So donating one twelfth of APNIC's remaining
potential IPv4 address space to satisfy the needs of a few of the
largest ISPs around the world (not just APNIC members) seems charitable
beyond all levels of charity I've ever come across in this industry.
4 ASNs out of a pool of slightly less than 4 thousand million is not so
much an impact. Same as one /32 out of 4 thousand million /32s wasn't
deemed that much for the IPv6 documentation address.
Example documentation is a base function of the technology, and is
not truly a function of the Asia-Pacific region or its resources.
Why not? Operators need to write documentation too, not just IETF
standards developers...
This suggests that the proposal should go directly to the IETF. If
the IPv6 documentation address range had originally been taken
through APNIC prior to submission to the IETF
That was taken to the IETF when one participant in the IETF noted that
the APNIC proposal did something that this participant had been thinking
about but had never actually got around to documenting. It really
wouldn't have mattered one jot if it had gone to the IETF or not.
then I suggest that
the discussion at APNIC 25 regarding prop-058 provides a more recent
and therefore overriding precedent on similar issues to this proposal.
Not at all. prop-58 had potentially huge impact, which if accepted would
significantly affect all the APNIC membership for the benefit of a few
providers at a global scale.
I haven't yet seen any reasoning here why prop-61 is to the detriment of
APNIC membership.
philip
--
