On 4 February 2015 at 14:54, Dean Pemberton <d...@internetnz.net.nz> wrote:
> There are a number of things that concern me about this proposal. > > 1) it doesn't appear to support needs based allocation > 2) it doesn't support allocation on nibble boundaries which operators have > said repeatedly is a major issue. > As I read it... The proposal addresses only organisations who already have /32 allocations in the legacy IPv6 block (the IP ranges this includes are defined in the proposal). The allocation policy in the legacy block was effectively to carve out a /29, but then only provide the applicant with a /32 out of this /29 - meaning the gap between the /29 and the /32 remains un-allocated. Prop-112 simply proposes that the owner of one of these /32 allocations can, if the require it, request to "fill out" the /29 which is allocated to them in the back-end, so that they end up with a contiguous block of IP address space. It is not possible to stretch this to a nibble boundary (/28), because the next allocation in the legacy IPv6 block could/would overlap this. The proposal does NOT impact /32 allocations that were made since the newer policy of sparse allocation was introduced. Those are left to be dealt with under the existing rules. If the proposal is not accepted, the gap between /32 and /29 is "wasted" for every allocation within the legacy IPv6 block. This "wastes" 30,064,771,072 /64 networks, unless a policy is proposed and approved to somehow use this address space in another fashion. I'm happy to be corrected on any of this. But if my understanding is correct, the benefits of this proposal vastly outweigh any negatives, and I believe SAGE-AU will be supporting it.
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
