oesn't have an
appeal process in order to deal with this issue.
Speak for yourself. The PDP has a "final comment period" which allows for
discussions to take place, post-consensus call. This is the time for
discussions of this nature to take place.
I also urge APNIC EC to not Endorse this p
.
Members can already submit applications for resources under other policies, so
I do not understand where the added burden on the secretariat would lay. The
secretariat can already detect fraudulent applications for resources so this
would be treated no different.
Regards,
Christop
.
Concerns do not require a resolution prior to consensus being reached, it only
requires an acknowledgement. I addressed all of the raised concerns.
Regards,
Christopher Hawker
___
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To u
acknowledge what you believe to be or is still unaddressed leads me to believe
that there is nothing. Happy to discuss further if you have anything meaningful
to add.
Regards,
Christopher Hawker
___
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-po
is currently
taking place within the AFRINIC service region. Having said that, this policy
is not for the purposes you've described and I would be surprised if the
Secretariat decided to allow for resources to be temporarily assigned for the
purposes you've mentioned.
Regards
forward for IETF WGs, not for RIR PDP. Having said that, all processes were followed and all concerns addressed. In gauging consensus the PDP has been adhered to. Again, if you feel that this has not been done please identify what has not been addressed or is still unresolved.
Regard
that holds a /22 v4 prefix may determine that they require a /23 v4 prefix to successfully transition but having said this, network operators who have obtained space in the last two years should have very well factored in the ability to transition to IPv6.
Regards,Christopher Hawker
whitelist a public IP address that is used on a NAT gateway from a network security perspective it's not smart or wise to do so for an address on a network that serves 100's of people.
Regards,Christopher Hawker
___
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/
consensus
on it. It however (in my view) is rather important to provide access to
resources for non-profit users where they may have a temporary use-case. A /21
IPv4 prefix is a rather small prefix in the scheme of things.
Regards,
Christopher Hawker
___
SI
rant these allocations for purposes which we may not be able to think of, however may be a strong use-case.
If the Japan Open Policy Forum has any recommendations or suggestions as to how this proposal could be improved, please do let me know. I thank you and appreciate the feedback.
Regards,Christophe
Hi Fernando,
If it is to any type of event than I see no further justification, specially for commercial ones that can pay for a commercial offer that can supply the requires addresses in temporary basis.
This policy proposal has restrictions (and actually states in the proposal text) that
which IMO is a big no-no.
Hopefully my reply addresses your concerns. I look forward to hearing from you.
Regards,
Christopher Hawker
___
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig
Hello Fernando,
This version has been superseded by v002. As your remarks (as I understand them) appear to not be affected by the Secretariat impact assessment and the changes to the proposal resulting in v002 being released, I will address them on the v002 discussion.
Regards,Christopher Hawker
. If people don't
wish to accept longer routes it's their prerogative, however this should
not prevent newer operators from being able to use them.
Thanks,
Christopher Hawker
On Thu, 21 Dec 2023 at 12:03, Luke Thompson wrote:
> The logic on both sides seems valid to me. I think ultimately i
and operate via a NIR Member Relationship
Agreement. The MRA outlines what NIRs are able to do. You may wish to read
https://www.apnic.net/about-apnic/corporate-documents/documents/membership/nir-membership-agreement/
for a more comprehensive list.
Regards,
Christopher Hawker
APNIC to operate in a certain manner or to implement a specific policy, I'm sure APNIC's legal counsel would be all over it before we even caught wind of it.
Regards,Christopher Hawker
___
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
thor's intention. In this case, I would recommend the authors amend the proposal to allow for longer v6 prefixes to be allocated for ISP/multihoming use.
Regards,Christopher Hawker
___
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To
prefix they can receive up to a /34 v6 prefix with no change in the member fee they pay (see #1 above).
I like the idea and support the concept, I just believe it needs a bit of clarification and completeness before it is adopted (should it reach consensus).
Regards,Christopher Hawker
> > > Longer prefixes are misguided for a number of reasons, but I was’t
> > > referring to that.
> > > I was calling the idea of deluding ourselves into believing that the
> > > useful lifetime of IPv4 can be extended by these ever increasing extreme
> > > measures misguided.
> > This is
. If people don't
wish to accept longer routes it's their prerogative, however this should
not prevent newer operators from being able to use them.
Thanks,
Christopher Hawker
On Thu, 21 Dec 2023 at 12:03, Luke Thompson wrote:
> The logic on both sides seems valid to me. I think ultimately i
> Longer prefixes are misguided for a number of reasons, but I was’t referring
> to that.
> I was calling the idea of deluding ourselves into believing that the useful
> lifetime of IPv4 can be extended by these ever increasing extreme measures
> misguided.
This is starting to digress from the
Apologies for the double post, my question in the first paragraph should have
read:
Why should we not consider /25 prefixes the new norm for resource delegations?
___
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe
> > My problem still lies with the community not accepting prefixes longer than
> > a /24 for global routability. We can't prevent IXPs with prefixes longer
> > than a /24 from routing their prefixes, when those with shorter than or
> > equal to a /24 can. It's either all can, or none can.
> My
nd cannot route resources, the community
defines policy (see the PDP). APNIC simply facilitates this process.
Regards,
Christopher Hawker
___
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-le...@lists.apnic.net
Hi Jordi,
While I do support the need for temporary transfers (as this would ease
management of these resources), unfortunately I do not support this proposal as
it is currently written.
While there is a potential benefit for temporary transfers to be made, unless a
minimum transfer period
his, and appreciate in advance clarification where I'm unaware of
> other realities, etc - always happy to learn, be wrong, etc.
Happy to help provide info where and when I can, you (or anyone else) are
welcome to contact me either on or off-list.
>
> Thank you,
> Luke Thompson
Regards,
Christopher Hawker
___
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-le...@lists.apnic.net
adoption.
Regards,
Christopher Hawker
___
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-le...@lists.apnic.net
Hi all,
Just wanted to bring this proposal back up again after being brought back for
further discussions from APNIC 56.
There is no technical limitation preventing IXPs from using prefixes longer
than a /24 delegation. There are IXP operators that do use shorter prefixes
successfully today.
28 matches
Mail list logo
