Re: [sig-policy] Summary of discussion prop-100 {SECURITY=UNCLASSIFIED}
-----Original Message-----
From: Naresh Ajwani
Sent: 01/09/2011, 9:18 AM
To: "HENDERSON MIKE, MR"
Cc: "
Subject: Re: [sig-policy] Summary of discussion prop-100 {SECURITY=UNCLASSIFIED}
Dear Mike,
> I believe that Prop-100 embodies the attitude that IPv6 address space,
> like IPv4 address space, is a scarce commodity, and that a prophylactic
> approach is required to ensure that it won't run out for nations with
> fast developing needs for internet-connected devices.
> This is, in my view, an incorrect belief framework, and should not be
> incorporated into APNIC Policy.
First of all, it's about reserving and that too for all economies and in my understanding, it's a thought only that is giving credibility to prop-100.
The mandate with APNIC is of over 50 economies and shud be visible to all by such policies.
> On the other hand, if the APNIC staff were to adopt, as an administrative guideline, that all Indian IPv6 address space requests were to be satisfied from a particular contiguous /16, I would have no objection.
If we are okay with it administratively and for one economy, why can't it be a policy and for all economies in AP?
Regards and best wishes,
Naresh Ajwani
Sent from my iPad
On Sep 1, 2011, at 4:47, "HENDERSON MIKE, MR" <MICHAEL.HENDERSON@nzdf.mil.nz> wrote:
> I was opposed to version 1 of this proposition.
> I am less opposed to version 2, but still do not support the
> proposition.
>
> I believe that Prop-100 embodies the attitude that IPv6 address space,
> like IPv4 address space, is a scarce commodity, and that a prophylactic
> approach is required to ensure that it won't run out for nations with
> fast developing needs for internet-connected devices.
> This is, in my view, an incorrect belief framework, and should not be
> incorporated into APNIC Policy.
>
>
> On the other hand, if the APNIC staff were to adopt, as an
> administrative guideline, that all Indian IPv6 address space requests
> were to be satisfied from a particular contiguous /16, I would have no
> objection. That would, however, be an administrative decision, not a
> Policy directive.
>
> I don't actually think that would be effective in anything other than
> the very short term, for the reasons that others have put forward on
> this list.
> For example, I believe that the APNIC staff would receive requests from
> Indian-based members for assignments and/or allocations specifically
> outside the "Indian /16", for good technical reasons.
>
>
> Regards
>
>
> Mike
>
>
> -----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 Andy Linton
> Sent: Thursday, 1 September 2011 10:40 a.m.
> To: sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net
> Subject: [sig-policy] Summary of discussion prop-100
>
>
> My apologies for this being delayed. Yesterday was my first time through
> the Policy SIG meeting as Chair and this got missed.
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
>
> prop-100: National IP Address Plan - Allocation of country-wide IP
> address blocks
> _______________________________________________________________________
>
> Dear SIG members
>
> Below is a summary of discussions on the proposal to date. We encourage
> you to continue discussions on the mailing list before the Policy
> SIG.
>
> Regards,
>
> Andy and Terence
>
>
> Proposal summary
> -----------------
>
> This proposal calls for adequate IPv6 address space per economy be
> reserved for future allocations to organizations and stakeholders within
> that economy.
>
>
> Discussion statistics
> ----------------------
>
> Version 1 posted to Policy SIG mailing list: 2 August 2011
> Version 2 posted to Policy SIG mailing list: 30 August 2011
>
> Number of posts since proposal first posted: 108
>
> Number of people participating in discussions: 34
>
>
> Summary of discussion to date
> ------------------------------
>
> - There was very little consensus on this proposal during mailing
> list discussion with the majority of participants either strongly
> supporting or strongly opposing the proposal. Very few if any
> fell in between.
>
> - Many participants questioned version 1 on its technical merit.
>
>
>
> http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-100
>
> * 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
> The information contained in this Internet Email message is intended
> for the addressee only and may contain privileged information, but not
> necessarily the official views or opinions of the New Zealand Defence Force.
> If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, disclose, copy or
> distribute this message or the information in it.
>
> If you have received this message in error, please Email or telephone
> the sender immediately.
> * 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
* 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