Hi Dean, Thank you for your comment.
From: Dean Pemberton <d...@internetnz.net.nz> Subject: Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal ] prop-112: On demand expansion of IPv6 address allocation size in legacy IPv6 space [SECURITY=UNCLASSIFIED] Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2015 16:54:36 +1300 | There are a number of things that concern me about this proposal. | | 1) it doesn't appear to support needs based allocation I think it will be covered by the fee schedule. And also, the space is reserved for the organizing, and will be unused in the future. | 2) it doesn't support allocation on nibble boundaries which operators have | said repeatedly is a major issue. Yes, however, 1) Current policy do not care about nibble boundaries when address holders expand their address space. Non-nibble boundary address will be allocated in all case of address space expantion. 2) Cannot expand to /28 in legacy space. And this is not discussion point here, but I think: 3) Technically, nibble boundaries will be reasonable, however, too much IPv6 address space will be allocated if nibble boundary based allocation is introduced. (/32 -> /28 -> /24 ...) Yours Sincerely, -- Tomohiro Fujisaki * 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
