Re: [sig-policy] IPv4 countdown policy proposal
Hi David,
David Conrad wrote:
Arano-san,
On Feb 15, 2007, at 8:53 AM, Takashi Arano wrote:
A graduated approach means that some portions of addresses which can
be currently justified to allocate will not be justified in any new
graduated policy. In other words, it says the policy will have to be
becoming tighter gradually.
Right.
My question is HOW. I personally can't imagine which kind of policy
will achieve this goal.
Some potential examples:
- Currently, APNIC has an "80% rule". Create a policy that when the
current free pool is reduced by 50%, make it a 90% rule. When the
remaining free pool is reduced by another 50%, make it a 95% rule. Etc.
Arano-san and I have discussed this approach already.
But we conclude, at least at this moment, that this makes
the issue more complex.
We have two choices here. 1) keep as is till the end
we define, or 2) gradually narrow down to the end we fine.
We need to define the goal (or the end) of IPv4 allocation
timing, anyway. Approach 2 requires another decision of
when to apply the gradual reduced allocation policy.
So, the point at this moment, I beilieve, is that we need to
set the timing when RIR should halt the IPv4 allocation.
To define the gradual level of what extent we need to reduce
should be the next step of issue, if we found that our current
proposed approach does not provide enough time range
for communities to shift into IPv6.
- Currently, APNIC has no requirement to demonstrate IPv6 support.
When the free pool is reduced 25%, APNIC institutes a rule that
organization to which new allocations are made must demonstrate their
infrastructure is IPv6 capable. When the remaining free pool is
reduced another 25%, organizations to which new allocations are made
must demonstrate 10% of their customers are IPv6 capable. Etc.
- Currently, APNIC recommends organisations should base their
assignment requests on the assumption that 25 percent of the address
space will be used immediately and 50 percent used within one year.
When the free pool is reduced by 25%, these values should increase to
50 and 75 percent respectively. When the free pool is reduced by 50%,
these values should increase to 75 and 90 percent respectively. Etc.
I'm sure there are many others. Mix and match as appropriate.
There are many ideas. But these details may not be necessary
if we choose a basic principle of simplicity.
Our current proposal is based on this.
The key
bit is that the increasing requirements should be automatic so the
policy doesn't need to be modified.
Humm, Increasing requirements means changing the policy,
doesn't it?
One day, I apply a /16, Next day David apply a /16.
I got a full /16, but David got a 95% of /16.
Is this under the same policy? Is this acceptable?
or am I misunderstanding your point?
Even if there are any, who in the world can agree with a new policy
which
makes him/her giving up requesting addresses or just getting
significatly fewer addresses?
People put up with the imposition of the existing policies because they
felt it was the best way to manage the address space. Would this be
different?
Existing policy does not cover for RIRs how to deal with
allocating the last peice in their pool.
Best regards,
Kosuke
Rgds,
-drc
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management
policy *
_______________________________________________
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
--
***************IPv6 Internet Wonderland!******************
Kosuke Ito
Master Planning and Steering Gr., IPv6 Prom. Council of JP
Strategic Planning Dept., IRI Ubiteq, Inc.
(Visiting Researcher, SFC Lab. KEIO University)
Tel:+81-3-3344-7511 Fax:+81-3-3344-7522
Cell:+81-90-9826-4220
mailto: kosuke[at]v6pc.jp http://www.v6pc.jp/
mailto: k-ito[at]ubiteq.co.jp
Lifetime e-mail: kosuke[at]stanfordalumni.org