Re: [sig-policy] prop-111-v004: Request-based expansion of IPv6 default
Hi Owen,
Thank you again!
From: Owen DeLong <owen at delong dot com>
Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-111-v004: Request-based expansion of IPv6 default allocation size
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2014 11:16:04 -0700
| Yes, I still feel it misses my point completely.
Oh sorry, but I just would like to ask you, your first point, which
you wrote as yours and Dean's opposing view. That is,
| > | 1. unrestricted issuance of /29s to every organization regardless of needs.
My previous reply is just only for this point.
I wrote my standpoint for extending allocation to /28 in another mail.
Yours Sincerely,
--
Tomohiro Fujisaki
From: Owen DeLong <owen at delong dot com>
Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-111-v004: Request-based expansion of IPv6 default allocation size
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2014 11:16:04 -0700
| Yes, I still feel it misses my point completely.
|
| I have no problem with expanding the existing reservations which are bounded at /29 to /29.
|
| I don’t want to see us move the default allocation in the sparse allocation world to larger than /32. Larger than /32 should require additional justification for those blocks.
|
| Further, I don’t want to see us creating a default at a non-nibble boundary. For organizations that show need for larger than a /32, I would support a default of /28, but will continue to oppose a default expansion to /29.
|
| Owen
|
| On Sep 16, 2014, at 6:59 PM, (Tomohiro -INSTALLER- Fujisaki/藤崎 智宏) <fujisaki at syce dot net> wrote:
|
| >
| > Hi,
| >
| > Thank you so much for your comments.
| >
| > Here, just I would like to confirm,
| >
| > | 1. unrestricted issuance of /29s to every organization regardless of needs.
| >
| > I've added some texts that LIRs would like to to obtain a additional
| > block larger than /32 need to demonstrate their needs in version 3
| > (prop-111-v003).
| >
| >> From the mail I sent on 1st August:
| > |
| > | I submitted revised version of:
| > | “prop-111: Request-based expansion of IPv6 default allocation size"
| > |
| > | At the last policy sig discussion, I got concern about address allocation
| > | without any constraint, and some criteria should be added to expand the
| > | block size.
| > |
| > | In this revised proposal, I added the requirement to demonstrate need
| > | for both initial and subsequent allocations to reflect such opinions.
| > |
| > | For initial allocation:
| > | > The organizations
| > | > can receive up to /29 by providing utilization information of the whole
| > | > address space.
| > |
| > | For subsequent allocation:
| > | > LIRs that hold one or more IPv6 allocations are able to request
| > | > extension of each of these allocations up to a /29 without meeting
| > | > the utilization rate for subsequent allocation by explaining
| > | > how the whole address space will be used.
| >
| > # The wording is slightly different from latest (v004) version.
| >
| > Do you think corrent text is not enough?
| >
| > Yours Sincerely,
| > --
| > Tomohiro Fujisaki
| > * 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
|
|
|