[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Wg-ipv6-guide] RE: Wg-ipv6-guide digest, Vol 1 #10 - 1 msg
Okutani-san and all,
| It feels a bit ackward to exhange e-mails when we are just a few steps
| away from each other, but I think it's good to share the discussion,
| so I will reply by mail:-)
Nowadays it is quite usual to send e-mail to the person sitting down
at next desk, isn't it? (or is it abnormal?)
| > Above is the current IPv6 policy. Do you think that this mean that LIR
| > does not need to submit SOR to APNIC even when they sub-allocate
| > greater than /48 block to downstream ISP?
| >
| > This may affect other clause like "8. Second opinion requests " or
| > "8.1.1 Sub-Allocations".
| >
| > I would like to know original intention of the policy.
| It's a good point. It is not stated clearly in the policy, so I think
| it would be helpful to describe in the guidelines. What do the rest of
| you think?
|
| I don't know the original intention of the policy, but I believe that
| we should not ask for a SOR for sub-allocations to downstream
| ISPs.
Me too.
This is why I want to add a sentence such as 'LIRs should carefully
consider and justify the sub-allocation size'.
I have another question, should LIRs register the allocation greater than
/48 to RIRs database?
---
Tomohiro Fujisaki, Nippon Telegraph and Telephone Corporation
