Re: [sig-policy] Prop-098 Revision 2 (redlined version showing changes f
On Feb 24, 2012, at 12:38 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
>> Basicallly, they weren't able to relate to the needs.
>
> a less polite opinion, speaking for myself a rude american:
>
> thanks, i do not need policiy weenies telling me how to run my network.
With all due respect, this policy doesn't tell anyone how to run their network, nor does it seek to do so.
Instead, it tells APNIC that organizations that want larger and/or nibble-aligned allocations/assignments for 5-year planning horizons and better aggregation should be able to get them.
In short, it endeavors to tell APNIC how to issue addresses to better favor organizations that use them. (A task for which I think policy weenies as you put it are eminently suited.)
Current IPv6 policy is very liberal to extremely small and extremely large providers and somewhat punitive to those in between.
If you are very small, you probably have no trouble fitting all the /48 assignments you need into a /32 and policy really doesn't affect you very much.
If you are very large, the HD ratio calculation gives you an exponential advantage on the amount of address space you can grab.
If you are in between, it can be very hard to get more than a /32 for a network that would be better served by a /28 or even a /24.
What will happen with most such organizations under current policy is that they will come back for more and more and more /32s over time and we can repeat the IPv4 routing table all over again.
Under the proposed policy, those organizations could get a large enough block to avoid this unnecessary disaggregation and better plan their networks if they so choose. It would still be up to the organization. If you need a /28 but only want a /32, there is nothing in this proposal to prevent you from doing that.
If fees were a policy matter, I would suggest here that having a fee structure that discourages using larger upfront allocations to avoid disaggregation later (as is the current case) is not in the best interests of the community. However, I believe such a discussion is not part of the policy process and raising it in the appropriate forum is unlikely to gain any traction without the necessary policy modifications being in place first.
Owen