My reading of the policy proposal is that it aims to allow people who
received allocations under the legacy allocation scheme to expand their
address space in a contiguous fashion without having to shift out of their
existing address space.
Maybe I'm being dense but how are the restricted
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
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
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
On Feb 3, 2015, at 8:12 PM, Robert Hudson hud...@gmail.com wrote:
On 4 February 2015 at 14:54, Dean Pemberton d...@internetnz.net.nz
mailto: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
On Feb 3, 2015, at 8:12 PM, Robert Hudson hud...@gmail.com
mailto:hud...@gmail.com wrote:
On 4 February 2015 at 14:54, Dean Pemberton d...@internetnz.net.nz
mailto:d...@internetnz.net.nz wrote:
There are a number of things that concern me about this proposal.
1) it doesn't appear to
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 ]
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 d...@internetnz.net.nz a écrit :
There are a number of things that concern me about this proposal.
1) it doesn't
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
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
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
11 matches
Mail list logo
