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
Firstly I agree with Randy here. If you're not multi-homed then your
routing policy can not be 'unique' from your single upstream. You may wish
it was, but you have no way to enforce this.
Secondly, In considering this policy proposal in conjunction with prop-113,
I am increasingly doubtful
This proposal seems to advocates two things:
The removal of any requirement for organisations to be multihomed
The removal of any needs based allocation for IPv4 address allocation.
The proposed wording states:
Section 3.3: Criteria for small delegations
An organization is eligible if it
Dear Colleagues,
While 4 proposals will be discussed in Fukuoka on next Thu,
there is no comment/discussion in past 2 weeks on this list.
It is good if you were celebrating Chinese new year, but I would like to
encourage you, in particular those who have not yet, to express your views
for each
Dear Colleagues,
And, here is prop-115. No comment has not been made for this proposal.
If reached consensus, it may needs significant change for whois database.
I just reviewed implementation impact assessment by the Secretariat,
and it says it might take more than 6 months.
I think same thing
Hi Dean
This proposal seems to advocates two things:
The removal of any requirement for organisations to be multihomed
Yes,
The removal of any needs based allocation for IPv4 address allocation.
Not exactly.
The proposed wording states:
Section 3.3: Criteria for small delegations
Personally I support it.
On 3 February 2015 at 23:26, Masato Yamanishi myama...@gmail.com 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 Meeting at APNIC 39 in
