Hi Aftab,

Thank you for your comment.

2016-09-21 9:55 GMT+09:00 Aftab Siddiqui <aftab.siddi...@gmail.com>:
> prop-116 is similar to prop-106 with few cosmetic changes so it would be
> good to review the old discussion.

Yes, the chair said at that time, 'let's see if the problem becomes
larger or whatever.'

I found many /8 block address were transferred as George kindly provided the
statistics, and also,  /8 blocks were transferred outside APNIC region. This is
because I re-open this issue.

Yours Sincerely,
---
Tomohiro Fujisaki


2016-09-21 9:55 GMT+09:00 Aftab Siddiqui <aftab.siddi...@gmail.com>:
> prop-116 is similar to prop-106 with few cosmetic changes so it would be
> good to review the old discussion.
>
>>
>> I wonder if there can be better way to prevent such kind of transfer.
>>
>
> Yes, there is a better way, scrap prop-105 and stop handing over additional
> /22 for no reason and add the recovered resources to final /8 pool. Or..
> Just get over with it :)
> --
> Best Wishes,
>
> Aftab A. Siddiqui
>
> *              sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy
> *
> _______________________________________________
> sig-policy mailing list
> sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
> https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
*              sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy           *
_______________________________________________
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy

Reply via email to