I do not support this proposal as currently written, on the basis that
there is currently insufficient detail provided to convincingly argue
for the change of allocation criteria. Although I moved the removal of
multi-homing for IPv6 PI allocations, I believe that the critical
shortage of IPv
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 wrote:
>
> Dear Colleagues,
>
> Regarding prop-113, I saw 3 very simple support and 1 clarification without
> any negative comment.
> Isn't t
--
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 potential.
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 7:47 PM, Aftab Siddiqui
wrote:
>> The removal of any needs based allocation for IPv4 address allocat
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 del
Personally I support it.
On 3 February 2015 at 23:26, Masato Yamanishi 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 Fukuoka,
>
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 i
On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 1:56 AM, Masato Yamanishi wrote:
>
> The proposal "prop-113: Modification in the IPv4 eligibility criteria"
> has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.
Support.
--
Sanjeev Gupta
+65 98551208 http://sg.linkedin.com/in/ghane
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on re
I support this policy change as written.
Owen
> On Feb 3, 2015, at 9:56 AM, Masato Yamanishi 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 Meetin
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2/3/15 5:56 PM, Masato Yamanishi wrote:
> The comment period on the mailing list before an APNIC meeting is
> an important part of the policy development process. We encourage
> you to express your views on the proposal:
>
> - Do you support or op
Could I ask that the APNIC hostmasters to comment on the following:
Have you ever been made aware of a situation where due of the current
wording of the relevant clauses in the policy, a member or potential member
has not made a resource application where they would otherwise have been
able to?
I
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 Fukuoka,
Japan on Thursday, 5 March 2015.
We invite you to review and comment on the proposal on the
11 matches
Mail list logo
