Re: [sig-policy] prop-046-v002: IPv4 countdown policy proposal

["Kenny Huang" <huangk@alum.sinica.edu>]

Dear Toshi San,

I have one minor suggestion: consider renaming the title of the proposal since it was discussed in the previous sig meeting. However, the purpose of a proposal is to become a consensus policy, that should be a common goal for members who is in favor the fundamental of the proposal. 

Best Regards

Kenny Huang

-----Original Message-----
From: sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net [mailto:sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net] On Behalf Of Toshiyuki Hosaka
Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2007 7:44 AM
To: Leo Vegoda
Cc: sig-policy@apnic.net
Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-046-v002: IPv4 countdown policy proposal

Hi Leo,


Leo Vegoda wrote (2007/08/08 18:52):

> If this proposal is accepted in all RIR communities, should it take  
> precedence over the current global policy for allocating address  
> space to the RIRs? For instance, if the IANA free pool had more than  
> five /8s left in it and fulfilling an RIR's request for additional  
> IPv4 space would take the pool below five /8s, what should happen?

> Should the RIR's request be partially fulfilled, leaving five /8s in  
> the free pool, which would then be distributed as per this proposal?

If APNIC requests two /8s while IANA free pool has 6 (and if APNIC's request 
  should be approved), then APNIC should receive 1(for the request) plus 1 
(according to this proposal) /8 (total 2). All the other RIRs have one /8 each.

Similarly if APNIC requests two /8s while IANA has 7, then APNIC gets 2 plus 
1 /8s (total 3) and the others have 1 each.

regards,
toshi
---
Toshiyuki Hosaka
*              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