allocations
(within reason).
Owen
Yours Sincerely,
--
Tomohiro Fujisaki
From: Skeeve Stevens ske...@v4now.com
Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-111-v004: Request-based expansion of IPv6
default allocation size (SECURITY=UNCLASSIFIED)
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2014 12:02:43 +1000
| Elvis
Just for the avoidance of any doubt, I completely agree with Owen's position on
this matter.
To reiterate:
* I can accept that sparse allocations already made on /29 boundaries
can be expanded to fill the entire /29, if there is no room to expand them to a
/28.
* I do not
Hi Owen and Mike,
can you explain why /28 and not /29?
Why waste so much and use only nibble boundaries? What would you accept
if someone needs more than a /28, allocation of a /24?
Kind regards,
Elvis
On 18/09/14 06:24, HENDERSON MIKE, MR wrote:
Just for the avoidance of any doubt, I
Hi Owen,
what has ARIN to do with the policy in APNIC?
I could also justify my arguments by saying that the RIPE policy allows
up to a /29 per member.. and that policy works very well as well.
Let's not use other regions' policies to justify disapproval of this
policy proposal. Especially
Elvis,
Owens position has been quite simply explained.
He does NOT oppose the increase in the size of the allocation just just
wants it done more cleanly.
Deans argument is that this will potentially waste additional space.
I see, and actually agree with both positions... I like to
Ok, thinking about this some more, I am still conflicted.
There are two schools here... simplicity and conservation.
I think worrying about conservation is important. But are we trying to
converse needlessly?
If we think we will be using v6 in 20 years, I think we are kidding
ourselves. With
+1
Except that I haven't disagreed with Dean on this for as long as Owen has :)
Regards
Mike
From: sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net
[mailto:sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net] On Behalf Of Owen DeLong
Sent: Wednesday, 17 September 2014 1:02 p.m.
To: Masato Yamanishi
Cc:
