hat, 123 members
received one range, 16 members received two ranges and 13 members received more
two ranges.
Kind regards,
Guangliang
==
From: Owen DeLong [mailto:o...@delong.com]
Sent: Thursday, 1 February 2018 3:00 AM
To: Skeeve Stevens
Cc: Guangliang Pan ; mailman_SIG-policy
Sub
block on 13 August 1999. As of this date,
3887 (57.77%) APNIC direct members have received IPv6 delegations.
Best regards,
Guangliang Pan (Benny)
Registration Services Manager, APNIC
Email: g...@apnic.net
SIP: g...@voip.apnic.net
Phone: +61 7 3858 3188
http://www.apnic.net
Hi Rajesh,
It was a typo in my last message. It should be:
As of today, 20535 /24s (31.33%) still remaining in the final 103/8 pool to be
delegated.
Kind regards,
Guangliang
==
From: sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net
On Behalf Of Guangliang Pan
Sent: Tuesday, 20 March 2018 12:49
Dear Aftab,
I can confirm these are the IPv4 ranges APNIC received from IANA recovered pool
in 2018.
Kind regards,
Guangliang Pan (Benny)
Registration Services Manager, APNIC
Email: g...@apnic.net<mailto:g...@apnic.net>
Phone: +61 7 3858 3188
From: sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.ne
Dear Aftab,
In the last 12 months, we had 331 new APNIC direct members received /23 or /24
delegations from the final /8 pool.
We also had 159 existing APNIC direct members came back and received /23 or /24
delegations from the final pool in last 12 months.
Kind regards,
Guangliang Pan
-v001: Using IPv6 for Internet of Things (IoT)
-----------
Proposers:
Guangliang Pan (Benny) gpan...@hotmail.com<mailto:gpan...@hotmail.com>
Wei Wong (Wesley)
wesleywangbeij...@gmail.com<mailto:wesleywangbeij...@gmail.com>
Qiang Li liqi...@xdns.cn<mailto:liq
---
prop-161-v001: Using IPv6 for Internet of Things (IoT)
-----------
Proposers:
Guangliang Pan (Benny) gpan...@hotmail.com<mailto:gpan...@hotmail.com>
Wei Wong (Wesley)
wesleywangbeij...@gmail.com<ma
Dear David Conrad,
Thanks for sharing the useful information! You have a good point.
I agree that IP address is used for routing and non-electronic items can use
any of myriad identifier schemes. However, let’s reverse the question – why
non-electronic items couldn’t use IPv6 addresses as identi
Dear Christopher Hawker,
Thanks for your comments and suggestions. Please see my explanations to your
concerns below.
From: Christopher Hawker
Sent: Tuesday, 6 August 2024 6:01 PM
To: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
Subject: [sig-policy] Re: prop-161-v001: Using IPv6
Hi David,
Please see my comments below.
This implies that the individual IPv6 addresses would be routable down to a
/128. How will that work?
The routing stays in /32, /48 or /64 level. A new system (platform) has been
designed to handle single IPv6 query within the address block and returns
Hi Christopher,
I think you are a bit conservative on using IPv6. 🙂
The objective of this policy proposal is not to ask for allocating large IPv6
block to IoT. I believe minimum allocation or assignment size will meet the
requirements from IoT industry.
Best regards,
Guangliang
=
I believe Christopher raised a real issue related to some new members try to
reduce their fee but still want to receive IPv6 allocation.
I agree with Fernando and David on the solutions to fix this problem: either
ask the APNIC EC to adjust fee schedule or allow new members have options to
sele
[Disclaimer: After 24 years services at APNIC secretariat, I have left APNIC
secretariat since this year. My opinions on this mailing list are in my
personal capacity and no longer represent APNIC secretariat. ]
---
Dear David,
I appreciate your understanding, explanations and suggestions. They
in New Zealand.
Kind regards,
Guangliang (Benny)
From: David Conrad
Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2024 2:43 AM
To: Guangliang PAN
Cc: Wesley; sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-161-v001: Using IPv6 for Internet of Things
nd, Shaila, and Anupam
APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
---
prop-161-v002: Using IPv6 for Internet of Things (IoT)
---
Proposer:
Guangliang Pa
Hi David,
I think that statement refers to early IPv6 allocations from the old /23
blocks. Before APNIC received the /12 allocation from IANA, we use sequence
allocation method to make /32 allocations and reserved up to /29 for every
allocation. That was the practice for all RIRs in the early s
Hi David,
Just to clarify the meaning of " Current /32 allocations from the /12 block can
grow up to /24 at this stage".
Based on the sparse allocation mechanism, the more allocations we make in the
pool, the smaller size each allocation can grow. At this stage, every
allocation can still have
Hi Masato-san,
We have made 220 allocations from those old /23 blocks.
Cheers,
Guangliang
=
From: Masato Yamanishi [mailto:myama...@japan-telecom.com]
Sent: Thursday, 30 January 2014 9:39 AM
To: Guangliang Pan; 'David Conrad'; SIG policy
Cc: Masato Yamanishi
Subject: Re: [
Hi Dean and All,
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 multihomed if it is connected
akes longer to apply for an ASN than
> it does to arrange and configure a BGP peering session.
>
> Thanks
> Dean
> --
> Dean Pemberton
>
> Technical Policy Advisor
> InternetNZ
> +64 21 920 363 (mob)
> d...@internetnz.net.nz
>
> To promote the Internet'
gliang,
>
> can you clarify these questions for me.
>
> If a provider connects to a v4 only transit provider over a physical
> circuit, but does v6 transit from Hurricane Electric over a tunnel,
> would that be considered multihoming ?
>
>
> - -gaurab
>
>
>
networkceoau>
linkedin.com/in/skeeve<http://linkedin.com/in/skeeve>
twitter.com/theispguy<http://twitter.com/theispguy> ; blog:
www.theispguy.com<http://www.theispguy.com/>
[http://eintellegonetworks.com/logos/v4now-web05.png]
IP Address Brokering - Introducing sell
=
From: Aftab Siddiqui [mailto:aftab.siddi...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, 25 February 2015 4:25 PM
To: Guangliang Pan
Cc: Dean Pemberton; Owen DeLong; sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
Subject: Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the
ASN eligibility criteria
Thanks Guangliang for
. They should have
different routing policies and announce different IP address ranges.
Best regards,
Guangliang
=
From: Skeeve Stevens [mailto:ske...@v4now.com]
Sent: Thursday, 26 February 2015 10:16 AM
To: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
Cc: Guangliang Pan
Subject: Requirements for Subsequent
Hi Izumi,
The option "b" is acceptable.
b. If an applicant can demonstrate a plan to be multihomed in
immediate future, it is not a must they are physically multihomed
at the time of submitting a request
Thanks,
Guangliang
=
-Original Message-
From: sig-policy-boun...@
Hi Aftab,
The option "b" is acceptable.
b. If an applicant can demonstrate a plan to be multihomed in
immediate future, it is not a must they are physically multihomed
at the time of submitting a request
But even then applicant has to provide the details of those ASN with whom they
ma
Hi David and Skeeve,
The requested data for APNIC ASN assignments are as below.
Regular : historical
99.87% : 0.13%
Member : non-member
97.44% : 2.56%
Best regards,
Guangliang
=
From: sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net
[mailto:sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net] On Behalf Of Skeeve
policies relating
to transfers within its service region.
Best regards,
Guangliang Pan (Benny)
Registration Services Manager, APNIC
Email: g...@apnic.net
SIP: g...@voip.apnic.net
Phone: +61 7 3858 3188
http://www.apnic.net
are waiting for their second /22?
Kind regards,
Guangliang Pan (Benny)
Registration Services Manager, APNIC
Email: g...@apnic.net
SIP: g...@voip.apnic.net
Phone: +61 7 3858 3188
http://www.apnic.net
-
* You can now call AP
diqui [mailto:aftab.siddi...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, 22 February 2017 12:23 AM
To: David Hilario; Guangliang Pan
Cc: sig-pol...@apnic.net
Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-118-v001: No need policy in APNIC region
Hi Guangliang,
Do you have any stats on rejection rate due to weak requirement justifications
ransfers based on announced by different ASes, should we
request them to return the resources if they announce by same AS after transfer?
Some of the statements in Advantages/Disadvantages and Impact sessions appear
to be outdated by the change to a two-year limit.
Best regards,
Guangliang Pa
Hi Tomohiro,
Thanks for your clarifications. See you in Viet Nam soon.
Guangliang
==
-Original Message-
From: 藤崎智宏 [mailto:fujis...@syce.net]
Sent: Thursday, 23 February 2017 10:54 AM
To: Guangliang Pan
Cc: Sumon Ahmed Sabir; sig-pol...@apnic.net
Subject: Re: [sig-policy
Hi David,
Thanks for your clarifications. See you at the APNIC 43 soon.
Best regards,
Guangliang
==
From: David Hilario [mailto:d.hila...@laruscloudservice.net]
Sent: Tuesday, 21 February 2017 5:30 PM
To: Guangliang Pan
Cc: sig-pol...@apnic.net
Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-118-v001
Hi Sanjeev,
The number of delegations from 103/8 pool since 29 Jan 2013 (Five years count
back from today) to 14 Sep 2017 is 10868. These are the delegations are not
allowed to transfer as of today according to prop-116-v006.
Kind regards,
Guangliang
=
From: sig-policy-boun...@lists.a
l>
--
Message: 2
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2018 13:12:33 +0500
From: "Yasir Shamim, Muhammad"
To:
Subject: [sig-policy] sig-policy Digest, Vol 164, Issue 7
Message-ID: <01fc01d398d8$eb05a550$c110eff0$@cyber.net.pk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=&
Hi Aftab,
The number of M&A transfers involved 103/8 address block from 15 April 2011 to
14 Sep 2017 is 257.
Kind regards,
Guangliang
==
From: Aftab Siddiqui [mailto:aftab.siddi...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, 29 January 2018 8:49 PM
To: Guangliang Pan
Cc: Sanjeev Gupta ; mailman
36 matches
Mail list logo
