Simplifying allocation/assignment of IPv6 to APNIC members with existingIPv4 addresses

End site assignment policy for IPv6

Assessment: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency · Sanjaya first asks how assignment reports should be aggregated and later says either approach is acceptable; the two messages do not state an overall position on the proposal.

Conditions: The comparison is limited to the two supplied September and October 2006 messages and does not cover every aspect or version of the IPv6 assignment policy.

Sep 30, 2006

And can we confirm that it is now based on /56?

Oct 2, 2006

I have no objections to either use the current IPv4 registration requirement or amend it to encourage/require aggregation at the infrastructure level.

A proposal to improve reachability of new IANA blocks

Assessment: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency · Sanjaya proposes changing the reachability objective from ensuring routability to testing and promoting it, then explicitly says he is neither for nor against APNIC performing reachability tests; the wording amendment and later neutral explanation address different questions.

Conditions: The first message discusses version 1 wording, while the later reply discusses the operational scope of testing; the supplied messages do not provide two explicit overall endorsements or objections to compare. · The first message discusses version 1 wording, while the later reply discusses version 2 and the operational scope of testing.

Nov 15, 2006

To avoid the conflict with RFC 2050, perhaps it is better if the objective is to "test and promote" rather than "test and ensure" routability.

Nov 22, 2006

I am not for or against APNIC performing reachability test

Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Policy for Allocation of ASNBlocks (ASNs) to RegionalInternetRegistries Ratified by the ICANN Board Executive Committee and implemented by theIANA

Assessment: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency · Sanjaya promises APNIC ASN data, supplies first-quarter statistics and clarifies the difference between initial 32-bit assignments and numbers later exchanged for 16-bit numbers; the statistics do not state a position on adopting the allocation policy.

Conditions: The three messages concern statistics and their interpretation, not an explicit vote on the policy; the figures describe the first quarter of 2009 and are not a current allocation census. · The statistics describe the first quarter of 2009 and are not a current allocation census.

Jul 15, 2009

Yes, we could provide data set similar to pages 2 to 4 in the referenced RIPE-NCC presentation.

Jul 24, 2009

- 6 were 16-bit (swapped from 32-bit to 16-bit) - 6 were 32-bit

Jul 26, 2009

There were 12 32-bit ASNs, of which 6 were swapped to 16-bit. Sorry for the confusion.

Ensuring efficient use of historical AS numbers

Assessment: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency · Sanjaya identifies prop-075 as one possible mechanism in the ASN discussion; that limited suggestion does not establish unconditional endorsement of the entire proposal or a change over time.

Conditions: The same email also clarifies prop-075-related statistics; those figures are not a second independent expression of a policy position.

Jul 26, 2009

prop-075 is one possibility :)

Recovery of unused address space

Assessment: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency · Sanjaya reports historical address-reclamation figures and says the process is ongoing; reporting implementation progress shows participation but does not express support or opposition from which a stance trajectory can be inferred.

Conditions: The statement describes the historical August 2009 implementation discussion, and only one attributed message about this policy is included in the review. · The statement that the process is ongoing describes the August 2009 message, not its present status.

Aug 4, 2009

We have identified 2,079 un-routed historical prefixes, of which 122 (6%) have been reclaimed by APNIC. This process is still ongoing.

Simplifying allocation/assignment of IPv6 to APNIC members with existingIPv4 addresses

Assessment: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency · Sanjaya explicitly says he is neither for nor against the IPv6 allocation proposal and explains that MyAPNIC records delegated resources and delegation dates; the operational clarification should not be converted into endorsement or objection.

Conditions: The APNIC staff description is his statement in the August 2009 email, not a claim about his current employment; one neutral statement provides no before-and-after position comparison. · One explicit neutral statement provides no before-and-after position comparison.

Aug 11, 2009

As APNIC staff I'm neither for nor against the proposal

Aug 11, 2009

MyAPNIC always have a complete record of resources delegated to the member, including the delegation date.

A proposal to improve reachability of new IANA blocks · Simplifying allocation/assignment of IPv6 to APNIC members with existingIPv4 addresses

Assessment: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency · The reachability-testing discussion and the later IPv6-allocation discussion both contain explicit neutrality while explaining operational matters, but they address different policy choices; repeated neutral wording therefore does not establish a comparable substantive position across policies.

Conditions: The messages were written in 2006 and 2009 and address different questions; the unreviewed historical record may add evidence. · Neutrality on these questions does not establish a general stance on other policies; the unreviewed historical record may add evidence.

Nov 22, 2006

I am not for or against APNIC performing reachability test

Aug 11, 2009

As APNIC staff I'm neither for nor against the proposal