Re: [sig-policy] Final Comment Period for prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria

On behalf of SAGE-AU, I support this proposal. On 13 Sep 2015 1:28 am, "Masato Yamanishi" wrote: > Dear colleagues > > Version 3 of prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria, > reached consensus at the APNIC 40 Open Policy Meeting and later at the > APNIC Member

Re: [sig-policy] Final Comment Period for prop-113: Modification in the IPv4 eligibility criteria

On behalf of SAGE-AU, I support this proposal. On 13 Sep 2015 1:24 am, "Masato Yamanishi" wrote: > Dear colleagues > > Version 3 of prop-113: Modification in the IPv4 eligibility criteria, > reached consensus at the APNIC 40 Open Policy Meeting and later at the > APNIC Member

Re: [sig-policy] New version of prop-113: Modification in the IPv4 eligibility criteria

In addition to Owen's point, I also wonder about this: AND - advertise the prefixes within 6 months Is there a process in place which actually checks this? If so, will APNIC actually pull back /24 allocations which aren't advertised within 6 months? If not - why even include it? Regards,

Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal ] prop-112: On demand expansion of IPv6 address allocation size in legacy IPv6 space [SECURITY=UNCLASSIFIED]

On 25 February 2015 at 07:13, Dean Pemberton d...@internetnz.net.nz wrote: +1 to most of what Dean says. My point is that if you need more than a /32, then you should be able to get a /28 rather than having to make a /[29..31] work. It's my understanding that current policy allows just

Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria

On 25 February 2015 at 17:06, Dean Pemberton d...@internetnz.net.nz wrote: Great - Thanks for that. As far as I can tell this covers all possible use cases I can see. I do not believe that there is a need for prop-114. I do not support the proposal I concur with Dean - I don't see a

Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal ] prop-112: On demand expansion of IPv6 address allocation size in legacy IPv6 space [SECURITY=UNCLASSIFIED]

On 4 February 2015 at 14:54, Dean Pemberton d...@internetnz.net.nz 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