Hi，Sanjaya and All, Thanks for your work. I think adding a definition of 'discrete networks' to the IPv6 Guideline Document can achieve the goal of pro-099. However, the wording of "with separate ASNs" is somehow confusing.I suggest to remove the word of "with separate ASNs", since "the prefixes of these multihomed networks can be advertised either internally, or externally, with SAME ASN or separate ASNs".
So my suggested wordings are: Discrete Networks ----------------- Where an organization demonstrates a compelling need, or requirement, to build discrete networks due to regulatory, geographic, or operational reasons and these multihomed networks are advertised either internally,or externally, the network may be defined by APNIC as being composed of discrete networks.
Any comments or corrections? Best regards, xing Sanjaya 写道:
Someone suggested that we should use the term 'discrete' (apart or detached from others; separate; distinct) instead of 'discreet' (careful about what one says or does; prudent; esp., keeping silent or preserving confidences when necessary). Thanks for the correction!Cheers, Sanjaya On 3/08/2012 10:41 AM, Sanjaya wrote:Dear Xing Li and all, My apologies for this late response as I've been traveling. To clarify the meaning of 'multiple discreet networks' such that the problem in prop-099 can be addressed, we would suggest to add a definition of 'discreet networks' to the IPv6 Guideline Document as follows: Discreet Networks ----------------- Where an organization demonstrates a compelling need, or requirement, to build discreet networks due to regulatory, geographic, or operational reasons and these multihomed networks are advertised either internally, or externally, with separate ASNs, the network may be defined by APNIC as being composed of discreet networks. If this is accepted, we will modify the "APNIC guidelines for IPv6 allocation and assignment requests" (currently under the editorial comment period) accordingly. http://www.apnic.net/community/policy/draft Regards, Sanjaya On 28/07/2012 5:32 PM, Xing Li wrote:Hi, Dean, Dean Pemberton 写道:So it sounds like Sanjaya is saying that your objectives are possible within the current policies and that no additional policy is required to achieve these goals. In light if that is prop-99 still necessary?I agree to achieve the goal of 99 without change the current policy. I suggest APNIC clearly documents this description and make it openly accessible for the IPv6 address policy. I will refer to this description and drop prop-99. Thanks! Regards, xingRegards Dean On Tuesday, July 24, 2012, Xing Li wrote: This is exactly the proposal 99 trying to achieve. xing -- Regards, Dean* 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