| | | | | | | | |
|
|
|
You're here: Home |
The stated purpose of APNIC, according to the by-laws, is "to provide the service of allocating and registering Internet resources for the purpose of enabling communications. (etc.)..."
prop-062 as written seems likely to leave the majority of a /8 - millions of addresses - unused on the basis that there *might be* new businesses arising to claim them. Against that, the current forecasts make it clear that those addresses would almost certainly be deployed in the active Internet under existing policies.
APNIC is expected to distribute the addresses allocated to it by IANA for **use in the Internet**. I claim that withholding addresses without a clear timeframe of usage does not meet that expectation - but this is what prop-062 would be likely to do, and in doing so would work *against* APNIC's objectives.
The question was also asked "So we've given up on IPv6 altogether?". Certainly not, and I trust that everyone in the industry is working hard to enable IPv6 as quickly as possible. However, prop-062 would most likely be applicable in 2011 (if G. Huston's forecasts are right), and I imagine that even with our best combined efforts that there may not be universal access to IPv6 by then. If that's the case, why should we deny Internet connectivity to millions of people for all of the time from 2011 until IPv6 is completely deployed, when we could connect them in 2011?
It's unfortunate that IPv4 addresses will run out, but unused IPv4 addresses will not help either.
There indeed may be good reasons why *some* IPv4 addresses should be reserved for potential future applications - for example, a hypothetical technical application where some seed IPv4 addresses enabled IPv6 deployment. Such an application would truly enable communications, and so be consistent with APNIC's objectives. But prop-062 is not one of those applications, and I doubt whether any application would require an entire /8 for that purpose.
I therefore *do not* support prop-062 as written, on the grounds outlined above and in previous emails.
Regards, David Woodgate
