I doubt APNIC has been successful at reclaim back IP allocations.
I do not think so.
APNIC has successfully reclaimed the block for the experiment
of the large space global IP address usage back to the public
pool in the past.
If APNIC and APNIC community properly check their activity of
the 6rd, then the block would not be a give-away.
My problem with 'limited time' clause is that 1) I doubt APNIC has the resource
to check/audit 2) if you have one account using the 6rd, you probably would not
tear down the 6rd address block and return it to APNIC
I doubt APNIC has been successful at reclaim back IP allocations. I worry that
would be another 'legacy/historic block'.
yi
----- Original Message ----
From: "fujisaki@syce.net" fujisaki@syce.net
To: yi_chu_01@yahoo.com
Cc: sig-policy@apnic.net
Sent: Fri, August 6, 2010 3:55:57 AM
Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-087: IPv6 address allocation fordeployment
purposes
Hi Yi,
Thank you for your comment.
| I think any deployment decision should be done within the confines of the
| available resources, IP addresses included. If one does not have the
| justification and v6 addresses to deploy 6rd, then one should consider a
| different deployment approach, not the other way around.
|
| Any thoughts?
I can see what you're saying, but in that sense, large address block
holders (maybe large ISPs) can use any deployment protocols but small
ISPs can use only limited deployment protocols. I think address block
size should not become a limitation to select deployment protocols,
especially in the IPv6 deployment phase (so I added a condition
this proposal is for a limited time only).
Yours Sincerely,
Tomohiro Fujisaki
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy