Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal ] prop-112: On demand expansion of
> On Feb 3, 2015, at 7:47 PM, (Tomohiro -INSTALLER- Fujisaki/藤崎 智宏) <fujisaki at syce dot net> wrote:
>
>
> Hi Owen, Mike,
>
> Thank you for your comments.
>
> I'm the author of prop-112.
>
> The purpose of this policy proposal is not to align the boundary but
> to utilize unused space. Up to /29 is reserved for each /32 in the
> legacy space.
I understood that from the beginning.
I oppose that purpose.
I would support policy that provided nibble-aligned boundaries.
I hope this is sufficiently clear.
>
> | From: sig-policy-bounces at lists dot apnic dot net [mailto:sig-policy-bounces at lists dot apnic dot net] On Behalf Of Owen DeLong
> | Sent: Wednesday, 4 February 2015 4:05 p.m.
> | To: Masato Yamanishi
> | Cc: sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net
> | Subject: Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal ] prop-112: On demand expansion of IPv6 address allocation size in legacy IPv6 space
> |
> | I will again oppose this as written. I would much rather see policy deliver nibble-boundary based allocations.
> |
> | I would rather see such organizations issued new /28s than expand these /32s into /29s.
>
> And renumbering will be necessary for this expansion, and the
> legacy space folders have used their address space for a long time,
> it might be difficult.
No, I am not proposing that anyone be required to renumber. I am proposing giving them a second prefix, requesting that they not make any new assignments in the old prefix and that when or if it dies of attrition, the old prefix be returned.
> Technically, I also think nibble boundary is reasonable, but that
> should be considered in other proposal.
Then I oppose this proposal as written. I made a proposal for nibble boundaries, but it was rejected, largely due to misunderstandings and some difficulties with power during the meeting where I was presenting the proposal remotely.
Owen