Hi Dean,
Thanks for raising the question.
Could I ask that the APNIC hostmasters to comment on the following:
>
> Have you ever been made aware of a situation where due of the current
> wording of the relevant clauses in the policy, a member or potential member
> has not made a resource applicatio
Hi Randy,
i liked dean's question. is there actually a problem? have folk who
> really needed asns not been able to get one under current policy?
>
Even, I liked Dean's question and would like to see what data hostmasters
have on this.
> randy, thinking of reintroducing the no more policies p
I support this proposal. This can solve the problem in some situations that
companies
are able to make BGP connections with operators only when they have their own
ASN.
---
Jessica Shen
CNNIC
-原始邮件-
发件人:"Masato Yamanishi"
发送时间:2015-02-04 01:57:38 (星期三)
收件人: sig-policy@
I support this proposal. This can solve the problem in some situations that
companies
are able to make BGP connections with operators only when they have their own
ASN.
_
Jessica Shen
CNNIC
发件人: sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net
[mailto:sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.n
Fujisaki-san,
As I support what Dean wrote, I will clarify my position on this point
The thing is, for the time being, there is way enough IPv6 space to allow
nibble boundary based allocation
When this time approches an end, the we can review this prop and remove the
nibble boundary
Regards,
On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 1:56 AM, Masato Yamanishi wrote:
>
> The proposal "prop-113: Modification in the IPv4 eligibility criteria"
> has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.
Support.
--
Sanjeev Gupta
+65 98551208 http://sg.linkedin.com/in/ghane
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on re
Hi Dean,
Thank you for your comment.
From: Dean Pemberton
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 conce
On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 11:54 AM, Dean Pemberton
wrote:
>
> 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.
>
I think there are two issues here, which are included in the same s
On 4 February 2015 at 14:54, Dean Pemberton 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
Hi Dean,
You’ve resumed my thinking !
As long as it doesn't support allocation on nibble boundaries I will oppose it.
Regards,
> Le 4 févr. 2015 à 14:54, Dean Pemberton a écrit :
>
> There are a number of things that concern me about this proposal.
>
> 1) it doesn't appear to support needs
Dear community members
Due to the resignation of the Policy SIG Chair in September 2014, APNIC
is now seeking volunteers to serve as Chair and Co-Chair of the
APNIC Policy SIG.
The responsibilities are outlined in Sections 23, 24, and 25 of the
APNIC SIG Guidelines.
www.apnic.net/sig-guideli
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 such I do not support this proposal in its current form.
On W
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.
| From: sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net
[mailto:sig-policy-boun...@l
I agree with Owen
Regards
Mike
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
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.
Owen
> On Feb 3, 2015, at 9:55 AM, Masato Yamanishi wrote:
>
> Dear SIG members
>
> The prop
>
> 3. Situation in other regions
> -
>
> ARIN:
> It is not mandatory but optional to be multi-homed in order get ASN
For clarity, ARIN requires either Multihoming _OR_ a Unique Routing Policy.
> 4. Proposed policy solution
> ---
>
>
I support this policy change as written.
Owen
> On Feb 3, 2015, at 9:56 AM, Masato Yamanishi wrote:
>
> Dear SIG members
>
> The proposal "prop-113: Modification in the IPv4 eligibility criteria"
> has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.
>
> It will be presented at the Open Policy Meetin
I did actually think that... but Aftab rightly pointed out that there are
people who still can use them, due to their own equipment or due to their
upstreams.
...Skeeve
*Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Broker*
*v4Now - *an eintellego Networks service
ske...@v4now.com ; www.v4now.com
Phone: 1300 239
i liked dean's question. is there actually a problem? have folk who
really needed asns not been able to get one under current policy?
randy, thinking of reintroducing the no more policies policy proposal
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2/3/15 5:56 PM, Masato Yamanishi wrote:
> The comment period on the mailing list before an APNIC meeting is
> an important part of the policy development process. We encourage
> you to express your views on the proposal:
>
> - Do you support or op
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2/3/15 9:19 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
> so the little hack above should be
>
>> - Is planning to use it within next 6 months
> ^ for multi-homing
make it applicable only for 32 bits ASNs.
(duck)
- -gaurab
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: G
> In order to make the policy guidelines simpler we are proposing to
> modify the text describing the eligibility criteria for ASN
> assignment by removing multi-homing requirement for the organization.
>
> An organization is eligible for an ASN assignment if it:
> - Is planni
On Tue, Feb 03, 2015 at 11:57:38AM -0600, Masato Yamanishi wrote:
> The comment period on the mailing list before an APNIC meeting is an
> important part of the policy development process. We encourage you to
> express your views on the proposal:
>
> - Do you support or oppose this proposal?
Could I ask that the APNIC hostmasters to comment on the following:
Have you ever been made aware of a situation where due of the current
wording of the relevant clauses in the policy, a member or potential member
has not made a resource application where they would otherwise have been
able to?
I
Could I ask that the APNIC hostmasters to comment on the following:
Have you ever been made aware of a situation where due of the current
wording of the relevant clauses in the policy, a member or potential member
has not made a resource application where they would otherwise have been
able to?
I
Dear SIG members
A Problem Statement, identified as "prop-115: Registration of detailed
assignment information in whois DB" has been sent to the Policy SIG for
review and further discussion, or development by the community.
It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting at APNIC 39 in Fukuoka,
Dear SIG members
The proposal "prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria"
has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.
It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting at APNIC 39 in Fukuoka,
Japan on Thursday, 5 March 2015.
We invite you to review and comment on the proposal on the
Dear SIG members
The proposal "prop-113: Modification in the IPv4 eligibility criteria"
has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.
It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting at APNIC 39 in Fukuoka,
Japan on Thursday, 5 March 2015.
We invite you to review and comment on the proposal on the
Dear SIG members
The proposal "prop-112: On demand expansion of IPv6 address allocation
size in legacy IPv6 space" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.
It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting at APNIC 39 in Fukuoka,
Japan on Thursday, 5 March 2015.
We invite you to review and com
29 matches
Mail list logo
