On 1/28/14, 20:48 , (Tomohiro -INSTALLER- Fujisaki/藤崎 智宏) wrote:
Hi Owen,
I'm sorry but I misread your commmet.
| If you're going to do this, I would rather see providers given the option
of choosing a size
| ranging from /28 to /32 with encouragement towards either end (/28 or /32).
Hi David,
Also, correct me if I'm mistaken, but by raising the default from /32 to
/29, you are raising the barrier to entry for small LIRs. I believe
APNIC's fees are based on your allocation size. Yes, its a logarithmic
function, but it still raises the fees. So a small LIR that doesn't
I completely agree with Aftabs evaluation of the fee related issue.
This would create a significant burden on small LIR's.
I no longer/do not support this proposal.
...Skeeve
*Skeeve Stevens - *eintellego Networks Pty Ltd
ske...@eintellegonetworks.com ; www.eintellegonetworks.com
Phone: 1300
-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net
[mailto:sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net] On Behalf Of David Conrad
Sent: Monday, 27 January 2014 11:30 AM
To: SIG policy
Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-111-v001: Request-based expansion of IPv6
default allocation size
However, the space up to /29
explanation.
|
| Yours Sincerely,
| --
| Tomohiro Fujisaki
|
|
| From: Guangliang Pan g...@apnic.net
| Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-111-v001: Request-based expansion of IPv6
| default allocation size
| Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 05:20:30 +
|
| | Hi David,
| |
| | I think that statement
