Re: [sig-policy] Policy Proposal for End Site allocation policy for IPv6

To: Randy Bush <randy at psg dot com>, Izumi Okutani <izumi at nic dot ad dot jp>
Subject: Re: [sig-policy] Policy Proposal for End Site allocation policy for IPv6
From: Geoff Huston <gih at apnic dot net>
Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2006 13:52:23 +1000
Cc: Save Vocea <save at apnic dot net>, sig-policy at apnic dot net
In-reply-to: <17576.35889.33024.130503 at roam dot psg dot com>
List-archive: <http://www.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-policy>
List-help: <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=help>
List-id: APNIC SIG on resource management policy <sig-policy.lists.apnic.net>
List-post: <mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net>
List-subscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy>, <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy>, <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=unsubscribe>
References: <6.2.0.14.2.20060318054818.02ef9818@localhost> <44A4BBBE.7060100@nic.ad.jp> <17573.62727.299147.483957@roam.psg.com> <44A87DDE.2020700@nic.ad.jp> <17576.35889.33024.130503@roam.psg.com>

At 01:17 PM 3/07/2006, Randy Bush wrote:

> Thanks Randy. It makes sense that the HD ratio calculation should
> be independent from the assignment size, but I'm not too sure
> what you mean by justified basis.

that the lir would assign what is needed/justifiable.  i.e. if the
customer can justify a /42 they should assign a /42.

> One more question I have is whether this proposal removes the
> currently /48 boundary for requiring second opinion requests.

oops!  we are entering territory i do not know well.  perhaps
geoff or someone else should speak.



same here - maybe Save can answer this question

   Geoff