CARVIEW

MOTORHOMES

Select Language

HTTP/2 200 date: Mon, 14 Jul 2025 04:53:47 GMT content-type: text/html; charset=utf-8 cf-ray: 95ee6b1c3e6e25e0-BLR cf-cache-status: DYNAMIC last-modified: Tue, 30 Jul 2024 05:33:29 GMT vary: Accept-Encoding x-content-type-options: nosniff strict-transport-security: max-age=15552000; preload server: cloudflare content-encoding: gzip [sig-policy] summary: prop-058: Proposal to create IPv4 shared use addre

[sig-policy] summary: prop-058: Proposal to create IPv4 shared use addre

To: sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net
Subject: [sig-policy] summary: prop-058: Proposal to create IPv4 shared use address space among LIRs
From: Randy Bush <randy at psg dot com>
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 04:24:16 +0100
Delivered-to: sig-policy at mailman dot apnic dot net
List-archive: <https://mailman.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: <https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy>, <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy>, <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=unsubscribe>
User-agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Macintosh/20071031)

________________________________________________________________________
prop-058: Proposal to create IPv4 shared use address space among LIRs
________________________________________________________________________
Dear SIG members
Below is a summary of discussion on the proposal since the last
summary was posted on 5 February 2008. We encourage you to continue
discussing this proposal on the mailing list before it is presented at
the Policy SIG session at APNIC 25 on Thursday 28 February 2008.
We particularly encourage those of you who have previously not taken
part in the discussion to express your views:
     - Do you support or oppose this proposal?
     - Does this proposal solve a problem you are experiencing? If so,
       tell the community about your situation.
     - Do you see any disadvantages in this proposal?
     - Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear?
     - What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more
       effective?
Discussion statistics
---------------------
Number of posts
    - Since last summary:                         16
    - Since proposal posted (28 January 2008):    19
People participating in discussions
    - Since last summary:                         6
    - Since proposal posted (28 January 2008):    8
Economy of origin of participants:               3 from Australia
                                                  2 from Japan
                                                  1 from Nepal
                                                  2 from New Zealand
Summary of discussion since last summary
----------------------------------------
     - During the transition to IPv6, 'double NAT' will be needed.
       Because ISPs have no control over what RFC 1918 space end users
       use, the extra 'shared space' proposed would be useful for ISPs.
     - It is wasteful that organisations are currently using public
       space for private addressing. This proposal addresses that
       problem.
     - Is APNIC the correct forum for this proposal?
         - The proposal was passed by the JPNIC community. Perhaps if it
           is adopted by the APNIC community, it could be presented to
           other regions or at the standards level (such as IETF).
         - APNIC has no recognised mechanism for declaring global unicast
           addresses to be non-routable on the public Internet
         - A global policy alone may not be enough to declare additional
           private use address space. IANA may require an IETF action as
           a precondition for registering additional private address
           space.
     - This is similar to ULA-C. Similar proposals in the past have not
       been successful.
     - Perhaps the size of the shared use address space could be reduced
       to between /12 and /16
Full details of the proposal, including a link to the previous
discussion summary posted to this list, can be found at:
     https://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-058-v001.html
randy, for {chair}

Original Source | Taken Source