Hi Mike, Thank you for you comment and let me clarify your one point.
On 2014/09/02 16:07, "HENDERSON MICHAEL, MR" <[email protected]> wrote: > I do not favour IPv6 allocations on “non-nibble” boundaries, I believe that > allocations ought to be made on “nibble” (i.e. 4-bit) boundaries. On that > basis, the next allocation larger than /32 would be /28, not /29. > Address masking and calculation on /29 boundaries will in my view be quite > nasty, and the size of the IPv6 address space is sufficiently large that we > need not, and therefore should not, impose such inconveniences on ourselves. > > Hence, in my IPv6 allocation world, a resource holder who has a demonstrated > need (for whatever value of ‘need’ seems appropriate) for address space larger > than /32, should be allocated a /28. > If they are ‘growing’ an existing /32, then the new /28 would very preferably > be one that includes the currently-allocated /28. > > > However, I understand the current situation is that the ‘legacy’ IPv6 address > allocation was for smaller allocations within blocks on /29 boundaries, if I > read the Proposition correctly. > As a special case only, I would support the allocation of these ‘legacy /29’ > blocks. The provisos being that firstly they do fall into this ‘legacy’ > category, and that secondly it is not possible (owing to allocation to a third > party) to allocate a /28 to the relevant resource holder > > But this proposal is NOT ONLY for the special case. Every organizations, which are new comers, “legacy” IPv6 space holder, and existing IPv6 space holder with sparse allocation mechanism, will be eligible for /29 by providing necessary information as shown in Sec.4. So, can you share your preference for current proposed text as it is? > 4. Proposed policy solution > ---------------------------- > > - Change the text to "5.2.2 Minimum initial allocation size" of > current policy document as below: > > Organizations that meet the initial allocation criteria are > eligible to receive an initial allocation of /32. The organizations > can receive up to /29 by providing utilization information of the whole > address space. > > - Add following text in the policy document: > > for Existing IPv6 address space holders > > LIRs that hold one or more IPv6 allocations are able to request > extension of each of these allocations up to a /29 without meeting > the utilization rate for subsequent allocation by explaining > how the whole address space will be used. > Rgs, Masato
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
