> On Feb 3, 2015, at 7:47 PM, (Tomohiro -INSTALLER- Fujisaki/藤崎 智宏) 
> <fujis...@syce.net> wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi Owen, Mike,
> 
> Thank you for your comments.
> 
> I'm the author of prop-112.
> 
> The purpose of this policy proposal is not to align the boundary but
> to utilize unused space. Up to /29 is reserved for each /32 in the
> legacy space.

I understood that from the beginning.

I oppose that purpose.

I would support policy that provided nibble-aligned boundaries.

I hope this is sufficiently clear.

> 
> | From: sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net 
> [mailto:sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net] On Behalf Of Owen DeLong
> | Sent: Wednesday, 4 February 2015 4:05 p.m.
> | To: Masato Yamanishi
> | Cc: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
> | Subject: Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal ] prop-112: On demand 
> expansion of IPv6 address allocation size in legacy IPv6 space
> | 
> | I will again oppose this as written. I would much rather see policy deliver 
> nibble-boundary based allocations.
> | 
> | I would rather see such organizations issued new /28s than expand these 
> /32s into /29s.
> 
> And renumbering will be necessary for this expansion, and the
> legacy space folders have used their address space for a long time,
> it might be difficult.

No, I am not proposing that anyone be required to renumber. I am proposing 
giving them a second prefix, requesting that they not make any new assignments 
in the old prefix and that when or if it dies of attrition, the old prefix be 
returned.

> Technically, I also think nibble boundary is reasonable, but that
> should be considered in other proposal.

Then I oppose this proposal as written. I made a proposal for nibble 
boundaries, but it was rejected, largely due to misunderstandings and some 
difficulties with power during the meeting where I was presenting the proposal 
remotely.

Owen

*              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

Reply via email to