Re: [sig-policy] prop-132-v001 AS0 for Bogons

2019-08-14 Thread Md. Abdul Awal
Hi Aftab-bhai, While I totally support the proposal, I think this will only isolate BOGON/Martian routes in AP region and so all the other regions must do the same to make the idea fully functional. By that, I indicate of a global policy, may be at the NRO level. But anyway, at least it can be

Re: [sig-policy] prop-132-v001 AS0 for Bogons

2019-08-14 Thread Md. Abdul Awal
Hi Aftab-bhai, While I totally support the proposal, I think this will only identify BOGON/Martian routes in AP region and so all the other regions must do the same to make the idea fully functional. By that, I indicate of a global policy, may be at the NRO level. But anyway, at least it can be

Re: [sig-policy] Version 3 - prop-126 PDP Update

2019-02-26 Thread Md. Abdul Awal
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: > >

Re: [sig-policy] prop-124-version 5: Clarification on IPv6 Sub-Assignments

2019-02-26 Thread Md. Abdul Awal
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

Re: [sig-policy] Prop-127 announcement : Change maximum delegation size of 103/8 IPv4 address, pool to a /23

2019-02-26 Thread Md. Abdul Awal
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.

Re: [sig-policy] prop-128-v001: Multihoming not required for ASN

2019-02-26 Thread Md. Abdul Awal
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,

Re: [sig-policy] prop-129-v001: Abolish Waiting list for unmet IPv4 requests

2019-02-26 Thread Md. Abdul Awal
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