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