> On Feb 23, 2015, at 13:00 , Dean Pemberton <d...@internetnz.net.nz> wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 7:13 AM, Masato Yamanishi <myama...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Q1. Is the benefit larger than the concern or not? > > What benefit? I'm not seeing one here. > As far as I can see there is nothing stopping an LIR with one of these > historical allocations (a /32 for example) coming back to APNIC, > requesting more address space, demonstrating need, and being allocated > that additional space. > > What this proposal seems to be advocating is that each of the LIRs be > 'gifted' up to a /29 without having to demonstrate any need what so > ever. > > I oppose this policy on those grounds alone. > > If the policy were to place a needs based assessment on the LIR, then > the proposal would not be required at all and we would be able to > proceed under the rules we have today. > >> Q2. Does the alternative solution proposed by Owen resolve this problem >> also? >> > > Owen's solution is available to people today. > > eg, If I have a /32 and I want to grow this to a /28 but there is only > a /29 possible under the allocation models, then I can request a /28 > from a different block and renumber into it, returning the /32. I > believe people have been doing similar things in the IPv4 world for a > while. > > In it's current form the policy is either not required (members can > get additional allocations if required), or a dangerous precident > (removal of needs based allocation for IPv6). > > I do not support this proposal in it's current form. > > Dean
+1 to most of what Dean says. My point is that if you need more than a /32, then you should be able to get a /28 rather than having to make a /[29..31] work. I would like to see RIR allocations and assignments done on nibble boundaries. Owen * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
