Re: [sig-policy] APNIC 18 Proposal

[Philip Smith <pfs@cisco.com>]

At 14:30 17/08/2004 +0900, Tomohiro -INSTALLER- wrote:

>  | Just for interest, have organisations had the problem you describe for
>  | LIR-A above, or are you simply trying to pre-empt a situation which is 
> very
>  | much expected to happen in the near future?  I can certainly see how it
>  | would give LIR-B an unintended advantage.
>
> A bit different situation from my example, but I've heard an ISP want
> to expand their address space because their service scenario changed
> when they had requested initially. And there are some LIRs in JP
> region that want to expand their address space if possible.
My reason for asking is that pointing out such case studies might be useful 
for the presentation at the policy SIG, and for supporting the proposal you 
are making. Obviously names don't need to be mentioned in public, but I 
think if there is an obvious grey area in the policy (which this appears to 
be), then documenting such difficulties will help clarify the necessary 
parts of the existing policy.

philip
--