> On 27/09/2016, at 2:45 PM, Aftab Siddiqui wrote:
>
> Wrong, they all have /22 from final /8 and another /22 from IANA recovered
> pool.
Nope: https://www.apnic.net/get-ip/get-ip-addresses-asn/unmet-ipv4-requests
Cheers
-Mike
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management poli
> This proposal does not prohibit transfers due to M&A. Transfers of 103/8
>
> block due to M&A continues to be allowed, based on the M&A transfer
>
> procedures.
I had always assumed that anyone trying to get more than one allocation of
103/8 was creating a separate entity, obtaining APNIC mem
+1
On 22 May 2015, at 10:48, Owen DeLong wrote:
We’re talking about a single /24.
Use it for whatever research value it has and then put it out to
pasture along with the rest of this antiquated addressing.
My $0.02.
Owen
On May 21, 2015, at 12:45 , David Huberman
wrote:
Dean, <>
Than
Hi Dean,
On 14/02/2014, at 11:44, Dean Pemberton wrote:
> I like David's way of handling the issue that you raise.
> By saying that "... it is acceptable to filter this prefix at an
> administrative boundary, if an operator desires. Further, it should
> be made clear it is not acceptable to adv
> 4. Proposed policy solution
> ---
>
>This proposal recommends that the APNIC community agree to assign
>1.2.3.0/24 to the APNIC Secretariat for use in the context of locally
>scoped infrastructure support for DNS resolvers.
>
>At some future point there i
On 26/01/2014, at 14:22, Andy Linton wrote:
> The proposal "prop-111-v001: Request-based expansion of IPv6 default
> allocation size" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review. It will be
> presented at the Policy SIG at APNIC 37 in Petaling Jaya, Malaysia, on
> Thursday, 27 February 2014.
This
On 26/01/2014, at 14:19, Andy Linton wrote:
> The proposal "prop-109v001: Allocate 1.0.0.0/24 and 1.1.1.0/24 to APNIC
> Labs as Research Prefixes" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.
I support this proposal.
-Mike
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy
On 28/01/2014, at 14:57, Owen DeLong wrote:
> I don't necessarily oppose folks using the prefix that way, but I'm also not
> convinced that there is actually a benefit to doing so.
>
> So I guess I'm neutral on the proposal, but I encourage my competitors to do
> this in their networks.
This
