Re: [sig-policy] prop-073-v003: Automatic allocation/assignment of IPv6
I support the concept of your proposal to make the allocation procedure
simple for members.
At the same time, I think we should maintain a certain level of check
that hostmasters make for applications now to see if the space is
planned to be used, and not just because they feel like asking for it in
a click.
May I therfore suggest to have members to at least explicitly state
their usage when they make request?
e.g. they will prepare equipment in x years
what type of network(native/dual stack/tunneling) they run
It can just be a tick in a box style rather than members having to
provide information, and I'm happy to leave the details to the secretariat.
I'm also still concerned that /32 will be allocated to endsites (it may
be considered sometime in the future like assigning a /16 for networks
that needs a /24 in IPv4 and create legacy space) as a result of this
proposal.
If this concern is also shared by others, perhaps, this can also be
handled as in the same manner as above?
e.g. ask the applicant to chose if they plan to make assignments to
other organization OR will only be use it within their
organization
if it's the latter, assign /48 even if they have IPv4 allocations
izumi
Andy Linton wrote:
> On 26/08/2009, at 03:09 , Yi Chu wrote:
>
>> Comment on 4.3: Not everyone likes to use the APNIC on-line system
>> for address request. Some may prefer using email template as it
>> provides a trail in the sent-mail box.
>>
>> Would it be alright to clarify that the proposal does not exclude
>> the templates?
>>
>
> Yi,
>
> Thanks for the comment on the proposal and Section 4.3 in particular.
> We have used the example of using MyAPNIC in some of the discussions
> on the list. We see no reason that a mechanism using an email template
> via the APNIC ticket system should not be available.
>
> I think that our wording of "a simple mechanism in existing APNIC on-
> line systems" in Section 4.3 allows for that.
>
> We've tried hard to leave implementation decisions to the APNIC
> secretariat but I'm sure they'll be responsive to user needs in this
> area.
>
> Regards,
> andy
>
> * 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