4.2 To qualify for subsequent IPv6 allocations under the proposed
alternative criteria, account holders must:
- Be a current APNIC account holder with an existing IPv6
allocation
- Be announcing its existing IPv6 allocation
- Demonstrate that the LIR has additional networks that are not
connected to the network announcing its existing IPv6 allocation
We can understand the needs for a seperate globally routable prefix, but
feel we should consider this proposal in balance with the consumption of
the /32s.
I think some data would be helpful to give us an idea and make up our
mind - Skeeve/anyone has any data about this?
For example, in case of Japan, JPNIC makes about 3-4% of multiple ASNs
to the same organization out of 705 total assignments.
If seperate network = seperate global ASN, we can probably assume the %
will be similar for additional /32s and have a rough idea on if this
could be acceptable. The figure could grow if seperate networks don't
bind to global ASN.
izumi/JPNIC