Re: [sig-policy] prop-046-v002: IPv4 countdown policy proposal
I have one minor suggestion: consider renaming the title of the proposal since it was discussed in the previous sig meeting. However, the purpose of a proposal is to become a consensus policy, that should be a common goal for members who is in favor the fundamental of the proposal.
Best Regards
Kenny Huang
-----Original Message-----
From: sig-policy-bounces at lists dot apnic dot net [mailto:sig-policy-bounces at lists dot apnic dot net] On Behalf Of Toshiyuki Hosaka
Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2007 7:44 AM
To: Leo Vegoda
Cc: sig-policy at apnic dot net
Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-046-v002: IPv4 countdown policy proposal
Hi Leo,
Leo Vegoda wrote (2007/08/08 18:52):
> If this proposal is accepted in all RIR communities, should it take
> precedence over the current global policy for allocating address
> space to the RIRs? For instance, if the IANA free pool had more than
> five /8s left in it and fulfilling an RIR's request for additional
> IPv4 space would take the pool below five /8s, what should happen?
> Should the RIR's request be partially fulfilled, leaving five /8s in
> the free pool, which would then be distributed as per this proposal?
If APNIC requests two /8s while IANA free pool has 6 (and if APNIC's request
should be approved), then APNIC should receive 1(for the request) plus 1
(according to this proposal) /8 (total 2). All the other RIRs have one /8 each.
Similarly if APNIC requests two /8s while IANA has 7, then APNIC gets 2 plus
1 /8s (total 3) and the others have 1 each.
regards,
toshi
---
Toshiyuki Hosaka
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
_______________________________________________
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy