Hi Owen, Thank you again!
From: Owen DeLong <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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) <[email protected]> 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 | > [email protected] | > http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy | | | * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
