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
Yeah I think this is a bit of a radical proposal to accept at present.
I'm not convinced we should be supporting CGN in this way, nor am I a
fan of seeing more and more information make it into Whois which might
not be the best place.
I would like to hear more from Hiromi-san about the problem
I look forward to hearing more from the author.
At present I do not support this proposal.
On Wednesday, 25 February 2015, Masato Yamanishi myama...@gmail.com wrote:
Dean,
I totally agree that we should focus on the problem statement itself in
Fukuoka
since this problem statement has
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
Looks like a clarification on the definition of multi-homing from the
secretariat is what we need before being able to proceed here.
--
Dean Pemberton
Technical Policy Advisor
InternetNZ
+64 21 920 363 (mob)
d...@internetnz.net.nz
To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its
On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 6:20 AM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
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.
This is not true.
You can be
Dean,
I totally agree that we should focus on the problem statement itself in
Fukuoka
since this problem statement has something new concept for Policy SIG
and Fukuoka will be first meeting.
However, I don't think this proposal needs to be withdrawn to focus on the
problem statement in Fukuoka.
Actually, after seeing the clarifications provided to Dean, I now oppose this
proposal as written.
Owen
On Feb 23, 2015, at 10:21 , Masato Yamanishi myama...@gmail.com wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
Regarding prop-113, I saw 3 very simple support and 1 clarification without
any negative
Members potentially lying on their resource application forms is not
sufficient justification to remove all the rules entirely.
If someone lies on their a countries visa application about a previous
conviction for example, thats not justification for the entire country
to just give up issuing
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
--
Dean Pemberton
Technical Policy Advisor
InternetNZ
+64 21 920 363 (mob)
d...@internetnz.net.nz
To promote the
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
All,
I¹m having an offline discussion with Aftab, basically the issue he¹s
trying to address is that new ISPs in small countries/cities may not meet
the day 1 requirements for an ASN, but however should be eligible since
they will require an ASN to peer/multihome at some point in the future
To me, relaxing these rules is less about lying - although is easy, but it
is to do with flexibility.
I understand the routing policy wont be different that an upstream without
being multi-homed, but it does curtail the convenience of being able to add
these things easily.
Lets say I was a
Agreed... Aftabs use case is one of many... the others I just posted about.
...Skeeve
*Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Broker*
*v4Now - *an eintellego Networks service
ske...@v4now.com ; www.v4now.com
Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve
facebook.com/v4now ;
Dean Pemberton wrote on 25/02/2015 15:06 :
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.
Same, I simply don't understand what problem is trying to be solved here.
If an organisation is
Thanks Guangliang for the update,
According to the current APNIC ASN policy document, the definition of
multihomed is as below.
http://www.apnic.net/policy/asn-policy#3.4
3.4 Multihomed
A multi-homed AS is one which is connected to more than one other AS. An
AS also qualifies as
I¹m with Dean on both counts.
My opinion is, if you are buying a single homed transit + peering, you are
multihoming.
However, if you are sub-allocated addresses from your upstream (non
portable) + peering, you are doing something undesirable (in my personal
opinion. Yours personal opinion may
17 matches
Mail list logo
