I see your point, and I encourage the authors as well as the SIG members
to consider these issues
.
Regards
Terence, thank you for that. If enacted, it does, indeed, reduce some of the
APNIC specific aspects of external concerns.
However, it does raise new ones.
By placing all such addresses into the post-exhaustion pool with its
very restrictive policies for allocation/assignment, you create the
situation where:
- APNIC is unlikely to receive additional space from IANA as
they are unlikely to exhaust the pool as defined in the proposed
global policy.
- Once all current APNIC resource holders have received their single /22
from this pool, the pool could become a monotonically increasing
collection of addresses that cannot be utilized. Of course, the
workaround for this is to merely create an additional APNIC
org each time you want to receive a /22.
The second concern is actually somewhat valid even with the existing
policy, but, certainly if there is the ability for this pool to grow from
external addresses, I suspect it will become a more tempting target.
Owen