[sig-policy] Re: Presentation for the Address Policy SIG
Hi Anne,
> Just to be clear (I am not sure if we misunderstand each other)
> a /64 is currently assigned for IXP-1, the next /64 for IXP-2 and so
> forth. all this is from a reserved /32 which is 2001:07FA::/32 for all IXPs.
> I suddenly got the feeling my previous comment wasnt clear and you
> understood each IXP gets a /32 reserved for them. Sorry for any confusion.
>
Yes, I understand about this. Thanks for making it more clear.
Izumi
From: Anne Lord <anne at apnic dot net>
Subject: Re: Presentation for the Address Policy SIG
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 16:53:36 +1000 (EST)
>
> Izumi,
>
> > As you have suggested, I think the terms "gTLD/ccTLC registries" and
> > "NIR" avoids any confusion, so I will use them in my presentation.
> >
> > > > > i. /48 should be assigned to IX
> > > > > Pros
> > > > > - Can be assigned out of /32 reserved for IX assignments
> > >
> > >Just for your information current assignments are from a reserved /32.
> > I see. Thanks for letting me know.
> >
> > In that case, I will remove this statement since the assignment size
> > makes no big difference in this respect.
>
> Just to be clear (I am not sure if we misunderstand each other)
> a /64 is currently assigned for IXP-1, the next /64 for IXP-2 and so
> forth. all this is from a reserved /32 which is 2001:07FA::/32 for all IXPs.
> I suddenly got the feeling my previous comment wasnt clear and you
> understood each IXP gets a /32 reserved for them. Sorry for any confusion.
>
> > > > > - all IXs will receive the same assignment size throughout the
> > > > > world
> > > > > - it is the minumum size to be registered into DB
> > > > > Cons
> > > > > - Assignments have already been made
> > > > > - /64 could meet the needs sufficiently
> > >
> > >It might be worth adding whether or not you plan to upgrade existing /64
> > >holders into /48's - this would currently require renumbering as the
> > >assignments are sequential.
> > Yes, that is a good point.
> >
> > I will note in the presentation that the existing /64 holders may ask
> > for an upgrade but renumbering would be required.
>
> Seems a good idea.ie. give them the option.
>
> > > > > iii./48 should be assigned to gTLD/ccTLD DNS
> > <snip>
> > > > > Pros
> > > > > - Can be assigned out of /32 reserved for this purpose
> > <snip>
> > >What was the reasoning behind making the DNS assignments from two
> > >separate reserved /32's? Could they be made from the same reserved
> > >/32 to simplify filters etc.
> > Sorry, this was simply the problem with the way I phrased it.
> >
> > My intention was to make assignments from the same reserved /32 as you
> > have suggested. I will rephrase it as "Can be assigned out of /32
> > reserved for micro allocations".
>
> Ah yes. sounds good.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Anne
> --
>
>
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
* To unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe" to sig-policy-request at apnic dot net *