> 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
