Re: [sig-policy]Re: APNIC Fees for IXP assignments - Proposal

To: Anne Lord <anne at apnic dot net>
Subject: Re: [sig-policy]Re: APNIC Fees for IXP assignments - Proposal
From: Randy Bush <randy at psg dot com>
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2003 18:13:21 -0700
Cc: sig-policy at apnic dot net, sig-policy-chair at apnic dot net
List-archive: <http://www.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-policy/>
List-help: <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=help>
List-id: APNIC SIG on resource management policy <sig-policy.lists.apnic.net>
List-post: <mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net>
List-subscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy>,<mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy>,<mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=unsubscribe>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0307261051580.22634-100000@durian.apnic.net>
Sender: sig-policy-admin@lists.apnic.net

>      IPv6 blocks shall be assigned simultaneously, and the last tuple
>      of the network portion of the assigned IPv4 and IPv6 blocks shall
>      be matching values.

is it best practice that ipv4 AND ipv6 are being used?

and i suggest that "the last tuple" is quite unclear.  if you mean
the last octet in ipv4, it is usually zero as a /24 is assigned.  if
you mean the last octet in ipv6, it also is usually zero, in fact
the whole last 64+ bits are.

so i am quite confused by this.

>    * Because of the infeasibility of IXPs renumbering their exchange
>      switch-fabric subnets, it is recommended that some form of sparse
>      assignments is practiced by APNIC.

i presume this is because you expect them to need more space in the
future?  as you do not specify how much space is allocated the first
go, this assumption confuses me.

randy