[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [sig-policy] summary: prop-058: Proposal to create IPv4 shared useaddress space among LIRs
Randy and all,
My response interspersed below...
Randy Bush wrote:
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> prop-058: Proposal to create IPv4 shared use address space among LIRs
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Dear SIG members
>
> Below is a summary of discussion on the proposal since the last
> summary was posted on 5 February 2008. We encourage you to continue
> discussing this proposal on the mailing list before it is presented at
> the Policy SIG session at APNIC 25 on Thursday 28 February 2008.
>
> We particularly encourage those of you who have previously not taken
> part in the discussion to express your views:
>
> - Do you support or oppose this proposal?
Oppose.
>
>
> - Does this proposal solve a problem you are experiencing? If so,
> tell the community about your situation.
No.
>
>
> - Do you see any disadvantages in this proposal?
No.
>
>
> - Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear?
No
>
>
> - What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more
> effective?
Eliminate it.
>
>
> Discussion statistics
> ---------------------
>
> Number of posts
>
> - Since last summary: 16
> - Since proposal posted (28 January 2008): 19
>
> People participating in discussions
>
> - Since last summary: 6
> - Since proposal posted (28 January 2008): 8
>
> Economy of origin of participants: 3 from Australia
> 2 from Japan
> 1 from Nepal
> 2 from New Zealand
>
> Summary of discussion since last summary
> ----------------------------------------
>
> - During the transition to IPv6, 'double NAT' will be needed.
> Because ISPs have no control over what RFC 1918 space end users
> use, the extra 'shared space' proposed would be useful for ISPs.
>
> - It is wasteful that organisations are currently using public
> space for private addressing. This proposal addresses that
> problem.
>
> - Is APNIC the correct forum for this proposal?
>
> - The proposal was passed by the JPNIC community. Perhaps if it
> is adopted by the APNIC community, it could be presented to
> other regions or at the standards level (such as IETF).
>
> - APNIC has no recognised mechanism for declaring global unicast
> addresses to be non-routable on the public Internet
>
> - A global policy alone may not be enough to declare additional
> private use address space. IANA may require an IETF action as
> a precondition for registering additional private address
> space.
>
> - This is similar to ULA-C. Similar proposals in the past have not
> been successful.
>
> - Perhaps the size of the shared use address space could be reduced
> to between /12 and /16
>
> Full details of the proposal, including a link to the previous
> discussion summary posted to this list, can be found at:
>
> http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-058-v001.html
>
> randy, for {chair}
> * 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
Regards,
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 277k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
Abraham Lincoln
"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is
very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt
"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS.
div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC.
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail
jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
My Phone: 214-244-4827
