[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [sig-policy] prop-046: IPv4 countdown policy proposal - returning to mailing list for development
Hi,
Personal comments on this proposal:
On Sep 26, 2007, at 10:20 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
The proposal contains four main principles:
1. IANA to distribute a single /8 to each RIR when the IANA free
pool hits 5 /8s. This date is defined as 'IANA Exhaustion Date'.
Seems fine, although just to be explicit:
Suppose there are 6 /8s remaining in the free pool. An RIR comes to
IANA and indicates they want another allocation. Current practice is
to allocate 2 /8s (if justified). IANA allocates the 2 /8s, leaving
4 /8s. The obvious approach would be to allocate the remaining 4 /8s
to the other 4 RIRs. Is that the intent?
2. Each RIR community can define its own regional policy on how to
distribute the remaining RIR free pool to LIRs after the IANA
Exhaustion Date.
I would expect this.
3. RIRs should provide an official projection on the IANA Exhaustion
Date to the community.
I'm not sure I see the point of having 5 different 'official'
projections.
4. RIRs should maintain the current address distribution criteria
until
the IANA Exhaustion Date.
Perhaps not too surprisingly, I disagree with this particular
clause. By analogy, we're driving down a road at 100 KPH and we see
a brick wall ahead of us. This clause requires us to put the car on
cruise control and close our eyes until we're about a meter from the
wall.
What is the rationale for this clause?
I would think a more rational approach would be for each RIR to
encourage IPv4 conservation using whatever policies make sense in
their region.
- Is this proposal addressing a real need or problem?
It isn't clear to me what problem this policy is attempting to address.
- What advantages are there to distributing the last remaining
/8 blocks equally to the RIRs?
Encouraging investment in developing countries by large ISPs in
developed countries?
Regards,
-drc
