| | | | | | | | |
|
|
|
You're here: Home |
Hi Jordi,I agree that making address space available to networks that need it is good. My concern isn't the goal but the phrasing of the policy. I think the proposal is phrased in a way that would allow almost any organisation where one department 'bills' another for a service to qualify for a /32 allocation. You implied that the membership fees are the main deterrent. As the APNIC Fees WG is reviewing the fee structure I think it might not be a good idea to rely on it when designing policy.
I think your goal is to ensure that multi-site enterprise networks can receive portable address space from APNIC. If that is the case, maybe it would be useful to ensure that 'site' is less vaguely defined and change the policy to allow multi-site networks under common ownership and operation to qualify for an allocation?
Regards, -- Leo Vegoda IANA Numbers Liaison
