Re: [sig-policy] prop-078: Reserving /10 IPv4 address space to facilitat
Andy, thanks for your comments.
Yes, this policy proposal try to give people second chance to get IPv4 addresses
if they intend to deploy IPv6.
As specify in the 'details of the proposal':
Allocations under this policy do not affect an LIR's eligibility to
apply for IPv4 addresses under the "final /8' policy", and vice versa.
Because IPv4 addresses allocated under this policy is restricted to support
IPv6 deployment,especially IPv6 to IPv4 internetworking; IPv4 addresses
allocated under other policies has no restriction; so we consider the
purposes are different, there for we recommend a first allocation
doesn't link to other IPv4 addresses resources the organization have.
Regards
Terence Zhang
CNNIC
----- Original Message -----
From: "Andy Linton" <asjl at lpnz dot org>
To: "Terence Zhang YH" <zhangyinghao at cnnic dot cn>
Cc: "Policy SIG" <sig-policy at apnic dot net>
Sent: Friday, August 07, 2009 11:14 AM
Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-078: Reserving /10 IPv4 address space to facilitate IPv6 deployment
>
> I like the idea that this is an adjustment to the final /8 policy. When
> that policy comes into play under the current allocation sizes we'd see
> people get one /22 prefix per organisation. The intention was that these
> organisations would not be eligible for any further blocks.
>
> Would a change which added this /10 mechanism mean that someone who had
> received a /22 also be eligible for a /24? If not, we should make that
> clear.
>
> Is there any value in having an intermediate step when there's a /9 left
> that APNIC issues /23 blocks? That would extend the life of the final /8
> even longer. If we take this option, we could express this policy in
> terms of the allocation sizes e.g.
>
> Address space remaining allocation size per organisation
> /8 /22
> /9 /23
> /10 /24
>