Hi Yi and Kosuke-san,
Thank you so much for your reply.
The point Yi mentioned was almost same as that of pointed out at
policy meeting in Japan.
My problem with 'limited time' clause is that
- I doubt APNIC has the resource to check/audit
I believe with a same scheme in the current IP address request (in
this case, the initial IPv6 address request larger than /32), it's
possible to check the resource.
- if you have one account using the 6rd, you probably would not
tear down the 6rd address block and return it to APNIC
I think this is ISP's risk, and they have to consider how to handle
such cases (this is operational issue, not policy issue, I think).
Yours Sincerely,
--
Tomohiro Fujisaki
From: Kosuke Ito kosuke@bugest.net
Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-087: IPv6 address allocation fordeployment purposes
Date: Sun, 8 Aug 2010 22:15:26 +0900
| Hi Yi,
|
| > 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.
|
| Kosuke
|
|
| On Fri, 6 Aug 2010 08:46:04 -0700 (PDT)
| Yi Chu yi_chu_01@yahoo.com wrote:
|
| > 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: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
| > _______________________________________________
| > sig-policy mailing list
| > sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
| > http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
|
|
| --
| Kosuke Ito <kosuke[at]bugest.net>
|
| * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
| _______________________________________________
| sig-policy mailing list
| sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
| http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
|
|