Hi Hiroki san, On Mon, 13 Sept 2021 at 09:19, Hiroki Kawabata <[email protected]> wrote:
> Aftab-san, > > Our position is neutral. At the point of promoting IPv6 deployment, we > support this. But, > > When "Go IPv6" criteria (it probably means 9.2.1. in policy document) was > implemented, > we were expecting to use IPv6 in an IPv4 network. > This proposal is different from above assumption, so it feels little > strange. > Yes, this proposal is for IPv6 only assignments. If a member is requesting for both IPv4 and IPv6 then it will be dealt with under current policy. 9.2.1 apply to those who already have IPv4 resources. > > In addition to this, we feel that small assignment tend to obscure the > resource holder to which prefix is assigned. It is necessary to properly > grasp them. > There are more than 61,500 /48s in the IPv6 routing table currently so I'm not sure if I understand your point. PI is not further assigned to downstream customers so it will not go beyond that. Deaggregation beyond /48 is not an issue in IPv6 as most of the operators filter it out. Please let me know if I misunderstood your point. > Regards, > Hiroki > >
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list [email protected] https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
