[AfriNIC-rpd] Opposition to AFPUB-2010-v4-005-draft-01

[Andrew Alston]

Hi Tim,

As per my previous email, yes, it does, clause 3.5.2 lowers the minimum allocation size to a /27, which I think is hugely problematic.

Thanks

Andrew


-----Original Message-----
From: rpd-bounces at afrinic.net [mailto:rpd-bounces at afrinic.net] On Behalf Of McTim
Sent: Monday, February 28, 2011 11:22 PM
To: Stacy Hughes
Cc: rpd at afrinic.net
Subject: Re: [AfriNIC-rpd] Opposition to AFPUB-2010-v4-005-draft-01

Dear IP Goddess,

On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 12:07 AM, Stacy Hughes <ipgoddess.arin at gmail.com> wrote:
> Esteemed Colleagues,
> I must speak in opposition to this proposal.
> First, I am philosophically opposed to soft landing proposals in general.
>  When the party is over, it's time to go home.  We don't get 5 more minutes
> or more birthday cake.

Have you ever been to a 1st graders birthday party???....they get the
5 more minutes AND more cake...I experienced this first hand a few
days ago ;-/

  Incorporation of and transition to IPv6 is the way
> forward, and necessary for all of us.


Full ACK

>
> I especially disagree with direct assignments or allocations of IPv4 space
> in subnets of longer prefix lengths than /24.

Does this proposal do that?  If so, I must have missed that in this iteration.

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
_______________________________________________
rpd mailing list
rpd at afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd