Re: [sig-policy] Final Comment Period for prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria

I support this proposal by adding multi-homed to be optional but organization should share their future plan of multi-homing to get ASN. On Sat, Sep 12, 2015 at 9:27 PM, Masato Yamanishi wrote: > Dear colleagues > > Version 3 of prop-114: Modification in the ASN

Re: [sig-policy] Final Comment Period for prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria

I support this proposal as it stands. Andrew On 13 September 2015 at 16:33, Jahangir Hossain wrote: > I support this proposal by adding multi-homed to be optional but > organization should share their future plan of multi-homing to get ASN. > > > > > On Sat, Sep 12, 2015

Re: [sig-policy] Prop-115 returned to author for further consideration

Hi, Speaking as a non-region participants and haven looked through the APNIC PDP[1], it does seem that if there is no consensus on a proposal, it needs to be discussed in other to determine if a proposal should be withdrawn or not. I quote the relevant section below: "If there is no

Re: [sig-policy] Prop-115 returned to author for further consideration

Hi , Actually i'm also thinking why this is important ? or why we are trying to mapping port with addressing specially in IPv4? I think their are so many reasons not support this proposal specially by considering technical feasibility and scalability . Just one question for my personal

Re: [sig-policy] Prop-115 returned to author for further consideration

I do not support the proposal. Contorting policy around the abomination that is CGN instead of recognizing that no amount of policy or other contortion will preserve usability in IPv4 and just getting on with the business of making IPv6 deployment ubiquitous is counterproductive for the

Re: [sig-policy] Final Comment Period for prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria

On behalf of SAGE-AU, I support this proposal. On 13 Sep 2015 1:28 am, "Masato Yamanishi" wrote: > Dear colleagues > > Version 3 of prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria, > reached consensus at the APNIC 40 Open Policy Meeting and later at the > APNIC Member

Re: [sig-policy] Final Comment Period for prop-113: Modification in the IPv4 eligibility criteria

On behalf of SAGE-AU, I support this proposal. On 13 Sep 2015 1:24 am, "Masato Yamanishi" wrote: > Dear colleagues > > Version 3 of prop-113: Modification in the IPv4 eligibility criteria, > reached consensus at the APNIC 40 Open Policy Meeting and later at the > APNIC Member

Re: [sig-policy] Final Comment Period for prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria

I still oppose the policy due to lack of inclusion of the possibility of a non-multi-homed need based on a unique routing policy. Owen > On Sep 12, 2015, at 23:33 , Jahangir Hossain wrote: > > I support this proposal by adding multi-homed to be optional but organization

Re: [sig-policy] Prop-115 returned to author for further consideration

I agree. On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 9:13 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > I do not support the proposal. > > Contorting policy around the abomination that is CGN instead of > recognizing that no amount of policy or other contortion will preserve > usability in IPv4 and just getting on