Re: [sig-policy] prop-056: IPv4 soft landing

[Raul Echeberria <raul@lacnic.net>]

At 01:51 a.m. 12/02/2008, David Conrad wrote:
> Hi,
>
> As the author:
>
> On 2/11/08 5:35 PM, "Toshiyuki Hosaka" <hosaka@nic.ad.jp> wrote:
> >     - Do you support or oppose this proposal?
>
> Unless there is a strong argument otherwise, I'm planning on suggesting this
> proposal be dropped.
>
> The issue is that according to Geoff's address consumption projections, the
> savings generated by Soft Landing will amount to a few months at best.
> While I might have some argument with a particular assumption Geoff makes,
> this is somewhat irrelevant.

The "soft landing" approach could be relevant not 
only for saving addresses but also for sending a 
clear message to the community.
I don't know if this proposal is as good as it 
can be. Probably it can be improved, but I come 
back to my point in other mail here, this kind of 
proposal need a global perspective.


Raúl


> The intent of Soft Landing was to make sure
> efforts were undertaken to increase address utilization efficiency and
> migrate (or at least integrate) IPv6.
>
> My personal suspicion is that Geoff's proposal will have a much more
> significant effect in the AP region in this regard (:-)).
>
> So, unless someone feels strongly otherwise (and expresses this to me or on
> this list in the next couple of days), consider 056 withdrawn...
>
> Regards,
> -drc
>
>
>
> *              sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on 
> resource management policy           *
> _______________________________________________
> sig-policy mailing list
> sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.2/1273 
> - Release Date: 12/02/2008 09:31 a.m.