David and all,
Very good review and determination to your decision. I fully agree.
I would further add that given the centric view towards migrating
to IPv6 under questionable allocation policies, the IANA and RIR's
seem to be more interested in political positioning rather than
managing
IP address space in a manner that best serves the community in which
such is supposed to serve. As such, and still, the leadership
associated
and responsible for this overreaching attitude represents a
potentially
if not eminent dangerous situation to ecommerce and non-commercial
access accordingly.
David Woodgate wrote:
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
* 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 281k 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
* 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
