|
|
At 03:57 pm 27/07/08, Philip Smith wrote:
Hi David,
Hi Philip,
prop-062 allows for 16,000+ LIRs to each get a minimum /22 allocation. As discussed in a previous email, it seems hard to justify even 4,000 LIRs over the next few years; I'd suggest that 8,000 LIRs in the Asia-Pacific seems unlikely within 10 years. That would seem to leave up to 8,000-12,000 * /22s unclaimed for a long time. But - if I'm reading it correctly - prop-062 doesn't seem to suggest that anything else would be done with this unclaimed space, and therefore it won't be used during that time; that is, the space is "locked up" and unused.David Woodgate said the following on 22/7/08 14:10: >My main problem is that prop-062 seems to risk locking up the majority of the last /8, and therefore does not share it at all, let alone in a fair and equitable fashion.I don't see how it is locking up the majority of the final /8. Would you please explain this.
If the tying of the allocation size to APNIC's minimum allocation at the time the allocation is requested is causing some concern, would you perhaps explain what might be a more useful quantity to choose, and why.
Actually, I think your question highlights the paradox of an "even distribution principle" as suggested by this proposal:
- If you try to distribute a /8 evenly across current and forecast LIRs, then this will make the assumption that all LIRs will need this distribution, and this implicitly abandons the principle of distribution according to demonstrated demand. And if you abandon that principle, then address space is likely to be wasted unnecessary allocations.
- But if you maintain a requirement of demonstrated demand, and only allow a single allocation from the last /8 to LIRs of size
{ (Addresses in /8) / (No. current and forecast LIRs) },
then you will almost certainly *not* allocate all of that /8 space
because the demand won't be able to be demonstrated by some LIRs,
which will then leave addresses from the /8 needlessly unassigned
(because the policy would stop allocation of addresses to LIRs that
*could* use the addresses, but need more than the uniform allocation to do so).
I'd be more sympathetic to a proposal which:- Was more aligned with the LACNIC proposal - that is, it reserved a smaller amount of space (the LACNIC proposal only specifies a /12) for *only* new businesses, based on a reasonable demand forecast model.LACNIC's new policy applies to a /12 when LACNIC can no longer get address space from the IANA. There is no reason why something like this cannot be proposed for the APNIC region.The authors' goal for prop-062 was to propose something constructive assuming the success of prop-055. If prop-055 fails, I see no need for prop-062. But I would then agree there would be need for a LACNIC style /12 policy.
I don't see why if prop-055 succeeds that the accompanying proposal needs to specify the usage of the entire last /8 - surely such a proposal only needs to identify the usage and reservation of as much address space out of the last /8 as is *necessary* for designated "special purposes", and could say that the remainder would be allocated by normal request processes.
- Considered reservations on the basis of associations between IPv4 allocations and IPv6 deployment or other technical requirements - an example (but not the only possible idea) is ARIN proposal 2008-5 (authored by Alain Durand)Again, no reason why this cannot be proposed for the APNIC region.- Identified that any part of the /8 not covered by these reservations would be available for demand-based allocation under the APNIC's normal allocation policies.Which reservations does this point refer to?
I meant the reservations that might arise in a hypothetically revised draft from the first two points I suggested: i.e. a smaller LACNIC-style draft, and any technology-based reservations; I doubt such reservations would cover an entire /8.
philip --
Regards,
David