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

To: Izumi Okutani <izumi at nic dot ad dot jp>
Subject: Re: [sig-policy] Policy Proposal for End Site allocation policy for IPv6
From: Randy Bush <randy at psg dot com>
Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2006 19:49:45 -1000
Cc: Save Vocea <save at apnic dot net>, sig-policy at apnic dot net
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> <44A88ED7.40608@nic.ad.jp>

> popular in JP.

wow!  why.  the goal was simple, to separate the prefix length
by which HD is measured from actual assignment size.  that is
all.  why could someone think this bad?  i am very confused.

randy