[AusNOG] Returned IP address resource allocation proposal

[Andrew Yager]

Hi Skeeve,

Can you possibly expand what you mean by "not as simple as that"?

I know we have had a discussion offline about this, but I'm still confused and don't want to be the source of mis-information.

As an aside, some members of the policy mailing list have indicated they feel there should be a clause that prevents members with a /18 allocation from being eligible for these pools. Would be interested in the ausnog opinion on this?

(I am assuming most of you wont join the policy mailing list and so I am happy to aggregate the reply.)

Andrew

Sent from my iPhone

> On 16 Jul 2013, at 7:31 pm, Greg M <gregm at servu.net.au> wrote:
> 
> As a small provider who needs more than 4 /24’s, this is awesome. $20k+ now for a /22 on the IP trading websites is just getting crazy, and for those “new” APNIC members who could only get a /22, then this is going to be very useful.
>  
> Greg
>  
> From: AusNOG [mailto:ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net] On Behalf Of Skeeve Stevens
> Sent: Tuesday, 16 July 2013 2:23 PM
> To: Andrew Yager
> Cc: <AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net>
> Subject: Re: [AusNOG] Returned IP address resource allocation proposal
>  
> Actually, it isn't as simple as that - the proposal is about using non 103/8 blocks and re-allocation of returned ranges. 
>  
> I'd love everyone to be involved in the discussion however... please join the APNIC policy SIG mailing list (http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy)
>  
> I've just resigned as Co-Chair, which means I am now able to partake freely in discussions again... Yah.
> 
> 
> ...Skeeve
>  
> Skeeve Stevens - eintellego Networks Pty Ltd
> skeeve at eintellegonetworks.com ; www.eintellegonetworks.com
> Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve
> facebook.com/eintellegonetworks ; linkedin.com/in/skeeve 
> twitter.com/networkceoau ; blog: www.network-ceo.net
> 
> The Experts Who The Experts Call
> Juniper - Cisco - Cloud
>  
> 
> On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 2:36 PM, Andrew Yager <andrew at rwts.com.au> wrote:
> Hi All,
>  
> There is currently a proposal before APNIC to allow an additional /22 allocation of IPv4 address space to members from the returned pool of IPv4 addresses to APNIC. According to the commentary on the proposal, APNIC has sufficient resources in this pool to allocate each member an additional /22.
>  
> I'm guessing most of us are in favour of this *in principle*.
>  
> The proposal is http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-105
>  
> I'm planning to respond saying that we are in favour, but would be interested in others thoughts/comments. 
>  
> Thanks,
> Andrew
>  
> --
> Andrew Yager, Managing Director   (MACS Snr CP BCompSc MCP MCE JNCIA-Junos)
> Real World Technology Solutions Pty Ltd  - IT people you can trust
> ph: 1300 798 718 or (02) 9037 0500
> fax: (02) 9037 0591 mob: 0405 152 568
> http://www.rwts.com.au/
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
> 
>  
> 
> _______________________________________________
> AusNOG mailing list
> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
> 
>  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/attachments/20130716/8b268a6f/attachment.html>