Hi Abdul,
Responding to you and Owen, as it seems you have the same feeling/questions.
There is no text in the existing policy that I’m suggesting to amend, that say
that the sub-assignment needs to be registered.
There is no text that excludes the point-to-point links from that policy
Hi Owen,
To make it short I’m not going to go into all the details, as I don't think is
needed.
The point is, I’ve no doubt that the staff is smart to allow two consecutive
requests for addresses first and one instant after the ASN. However, this is
totally artificial in my opinion. No n
Hello,
For those of you who cannot attend the OPM at APNIC 47 today, you can
follow the meeting remotely, and have your voice heard, either through
the maligning list or through adobe connect :
https://apnic.adobeconnect.com/apnic47-1/
Youtube live feed : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bECU5
Dear Chairs,
I am in non support of this proposal.We should not change the policy and
let do not delay the IPv4 exhaustion in this region.So that everyone can
focus on IPv6.
Regards,
Ajai Kumar
On Wed, 27 Feb 2019 at 01:13, Md. Abdul Awal wrote:
> I partially support this proposal.
>
> While min
Hi Aftab,
I'm neutral position about this.
After policies prop-127 and prop-129 are implemented, members can be received
only /23 from APNIC per one member. Does every member understand this situation?
For at least prop-129, I think that it is an important change because members
will
not be ab
I support this proposal.
BR//Awal
On 18/1/19 6:23 AM, Bertrand Cherrier wrote:
>
> Dear SIG members
>
> A new version of the proposal "prop-126: PDP Update"
> has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.
>
> Information about earlier versions is available from:
>
> https://www.apnic.net/community/
I agree with Owen and would like to express opposition to this proposal.
I believe the term "sub-assignment" has the indication of making
official sub distribution of addresses by and LIR/ISP to their client
organizations. The concerns addressed in this proposal seem to be
covered already within t
I partially support this proposal.
While minimizing the delegation size from /22 to /23 would delay the
IPv4 exhaustion in this region, this discussion would return again later
on with proposals like minimizing the delegation size to /24. It'd be
interesting to see how community reacts to this.
B
I support the proposal.
An organization may neither be currently mutihomed, nor intend to be
multihomed in future, rather it just want to peer with a single provider
should be eligible to get an ASN. I understand that the current policy
doesn't force anyone to be actually multihomed in future, but
I support this proposal.
Since the waiting list is already too big (still growing) and there's no
actual progress in terms of address allocation to the member
organization from the waiting list, there's no reasonably strong point
of keeping the list active.
BR//Awal
On 22/1/19 6:15 AM, Bertrand
10 matches
Mail list logo
