On 26 jul 2007, at 13.18, Raul Echeberria wrote:
If some of the LIRs in those two regions converted from
NAT and double NAT to using real IPv4 addressing, both LACNIC and
AfriNIC would receive more IPv4 /8 blocks sooner, making the
chance of
them running out first less of a likelihood.
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, while the RIRs traditionally have had conservation and
aggregation as their main goals with their policies, that to me is
not the same as encouraging the use of NATs. I think that what Philip
is hinting at (not that I want to put words in his mouth) is that the
current use of NATs and double NATs will over time show to be a
hinderance in deploying new technology and services. When providers
in regions with less assigned IPv4-space/Internet user develops and
providers want to deploy new technology, getting the needed IPv4
space might turn out to be to late.
The question of stewardship of the reming free pool is orthogonal to
the question of getting rid of NATs and securing current deployments.
To do the latter LIRs should be encouraged to seek the IPv4 addresses
they will need (actually probably does) for their customers. IF the
RIRs are concerned about the allocation pace, that is regulated by
policy - not by discouraging people from applying for IPv4 space.
Oh, and I second Philips non support for this policy proposal.
- kurtis -