Hi Raul,
Raul Echeberria said the following on 26/7/07 21:18:
At 05:14 a.m. 26/07/2007, Philip Smith wrote:
For the record, I don't support this policy proposal as it is basically
unfair.
I think that what is unfair is your assumption about LACNIC.
Not sure I follow.... What assumption?
As I said at the AfriNIC meeting a few months ago, it would be better if
LACNIC and AfriNIC made it very clear to their members (e.g. like ARIN
Board did re IPv6)
Obviously you are not aware of LACNIC activities, but we have already
done it.
to get their real IPv4 address space now, rather than
continuing on their journey of make believe that NAT somehow solves all
their problems.
Reading all the way to the end of my sentence, you will see that I said
that it would help if LACNIC and AfriNIC made it very clear to their
members that NAT is not a solution. (As I hope the other 3 RIRs are also
doing - but I see NAT and double NAT as rife across those two regions,
even more so than in APNIC's region.)
LACNIC has announced, as per ARIN, that the IPv4 pool available from
IANA is going to run out in the next three or so years (paraphrasing the
statement). This isn't the same. ;-)
It is not LACNIC's objective. We don't want to promote a competition for
getting IPv4 addresses from the unallocated pool.
Right the opposite.
Well, the proposal will promote a competition. In times of crisis, which
those folks without an IPv6 business plan will be in, they will do
anything and everything possible. As humankind does in any similar
situation.
Don't get me wrong, I have great sympathy for the proposal, but it is
unrealistic and unimplementable.
philip
--