Disclaimer: the comments below reflect the views of the proposal authors and
have NO link to co-chair's opinion about this proposal
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi, Izumi,
Thanks for your comments on this proposal.
We have 5-10 assignment cases every year in the past 5 years within CN,
and currently there are about 1620 assignments in total in the AP region,
averagely about 100 assignment cases each year in the
AP region.
With IDN ccTLD and ongoing discussion of more open gTLD policy, we
can expect dozens of gTLD will be created in the next few years.
I am not trying to argue the needs for new gTLD/ccTLD, IXPs or multi-homed
will be increasing, but it's certain that the needs will not diminish.
Regards
Terence Zhang
CNNIC
----- Original Message -----
From: "Izumi Okutani" izumi@nic.ad.jp
To: "Terry Manderson" terry@terrym.net
Cc: "Terence Zhang YH(CNNIC)" zhangyinghao@cnnic.cn; sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2010 10:07 AM
Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-081: Eligibility for assignments from the final /8
Hi all,
I think it could be possible that there will be needs for these
assignments if there is a new gTLD/ccTLD set up as critical
infrastructure, and we could also have new IXPs or multi-homed networks.
We constantly make 3-4 assignments/year for these use within JP.
Then again, if the numbers are not very big, may be it can accomodated
within the /16 reserved for unexpected future use.
Terrence, do you have an idea on how many of these assignments we
should expect?
izumi/JPNIC
Terry Manderson wrote:
I'm not seeing that as an issue.. Are you worried that those unscrupulous users of IP address
space would take a /22 from the last /8 policy and the transfer it in chunks of /24 to people?
Please clarify why the /24 transfer size in the final /8 is a problem?
I support /24 transfer size very much, Sir. Since you expressed strong objection to /24 allocation
size and don't want this 'be replicated' in the final /8, so I was just wondering if you will
propose to change /24 the minimum transfer size.
Transfers are a different beast to the final /8 allocation. Don't you see that?
What I am suggesting is that the industry will get far better use of those /22 allocations in the
last /8 as for use in v6 transition without being chopped up and micromanaged into /24 slices.
It makes no sense to keep the last /8 immune from /24 delegations, while the dozens of
/8 allocated before the last /8 allowing /24 assignments.
What I now think is keeping this thread going makes little sense. There appears to be no support for this proposal.
Terry
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
