On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 7:13 AM, Masato Yamanishi <myama...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Q1. Is the benefit larger than the concern or not? What benefit? I'm not seeing one here. As far as I can see there is nothing stopping an LIR with one of these historical allocations (a /32 for example) coming back to APNIC, requesting more address space, demonstrating need, and being allocated that additional space. What this proposal seems to be advocating is that each of the LIRs be 'gifted' up to a /29 without having to demonstrate any need what so ever. I oppose this policy on those grounds alone. If the policy were to place a needs based assessment on the LIR, then the proposal would not be required at all and we would be able to proceed under the rules we have today. > Q2. Does the alternative solution proposed by Owen resolve this problem > also? > Owen's solution is available to people today. eg, If I have a /32 and I want to grow this to a /28 but there is only a /29 possible under the allocation models, then I can request a /28 from a different block and renumber into it, returning the /32. I believe people have been doing similar things in the IPv4 world for a while. In it's current form the policy is either not required (members can get additional allocations if required), or a dangerous precident (removal of needs based allocation for IPv6). I do not support this proposal in it's current form. Dean * 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
