On 8/26/10 3:07 AM, "Randy Bush" randy@psg.com wrote:
Still, if you really believe that your carve out will last many years you
are arguing moot points since you would never need to receive any of this
address space.
fallacious.
the space returned to the iana could be used to allocate under v4
policies other than the last /8 policy.
randy
Summarizing the "discussion":
As Philip noted, 'no proposal should meddle in a regions affairs'. There is
a clear correlation between the APNIC regions non-needs based transfer
policy and the ARIN region declining to signup for mandatory address
returns. 1:1.
Minus the points of contention, if such a proposal is no longer needed,
that's probably much easier to say. If it is needed and wasn't just filler
text for trying to force another regions hand, I would argue that it might
be better to simply cut and paste the previous proposal sans the requirement
or with an insertion about non-needs based transfer.
Seems like the ball is squarely in the APNIC regions court.
Best Regards,
-M<