Just catching up, so sorry for the delay. I also support this version of
the proposal.
Regards,
Randy.
Another vote of support from me.
I've just caught up on much of the recent debate and don't see how an
organisation large enough to have an AS and its own prefix, will have a
hit on the routing tables that we aren't going to necessarily see anyway.
I guess the only catch is going to be where anyone disputes the 'due
justification' and the qualification of that by APNIC.
Mark.
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 10:06 AM, Dean Pemberton <dean@deanpemberton.com
mailto:dean@deanpemberton.com> wrote:
Now that version 004 of this policy has removed the sunset clause, I
support this proposal.
Regards
Dean
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 5:55 PM, Andy Linton <asjl@lpnz.org
<mailto:asjl@lpnz.org>> wrote:
> We'd like to remind you all that this proposal was returned to
the mailing
> list for discussion before the next meeting. It would be great to
see some
> discussion on the list before we get much closer to the meeting
in August.
>
> Regards
>
> Andy, Skeeve, and Masato
>
> ---
> On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 2:20 PM, Masato Yamanishi
> <myamanis@japan-telecom.com <mailto:myamanis@japan-telecom.com>>
wrote:
>>
>> Dear SIG members
>>
>> # I'm sending this notification on behalf of Andy Linton, Policy
SIG chair
>>
>> Version 3 of prop-101 Removing multihoming requirement for IPv6
portable
>> assignments, did not reach consensus at the APNIC 33 Policy SIG.
>> Therefore, this proposal is being returned to the author
>> and the Policy SIG mailing list for further discussion.
>>
>> The author has submitted a revised proposal, prop-101-v004, for
further
>> discussion on the Policy SIG mailing list.
>>
>>
>> Proposal details
>> ---------------------
>>
>> This is a proposal to change the "IPv6 address allocation and
assignment
>> policy" to allow portable (that is, provider independent or PI)
>> assignments of IPv6 address blocks to be made by APNIC to any
>> organization with due justification and payment of standard fees,
>> removing the current requirement that the requestor is or plans
to be
>> multihomed.
>>