Re: [sig-policy] IPv4 countdown policy proposal
On Feb 26, 2007, at 10:54 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
The point of this example was to make it self-adjusting. As the free
pool gets smaller, the restrictions increase automatically. By
definition, it would extend the free pool as far as it needs to go
the problem with this is, in operational reality, when i can not
get the allocation i operationally need, the ipv4 free pool may
be there in name but it is useless because i will be forced to do
something strange such as nat or ipv6.
Well, yes. Sometime in relatively near future, ISPs are going to get
to the point where they have the following choice:
a) say to the customer "Sorry, we don't want your money"
b) ask the customer "What do you _REALLY_ need?"
c) say to the customer "Here is one (1) IPv4 address. Go NAT your
enterprise"
d) say to the customer "Here is a /48 for IPv6. Go NAT your enterprise"
e) wave money around and say to the black market "name your price!"
regardless of whether the IPv4 countdown proposal goes for quick
trauma or chronic pain. I guess I'm just skeptical that the address
consuming community is going to be able to have will power to not
immediately dig into the reserve on a case-by-case basis without any
sort of policy framework to base requests on.
But as I've said, perhaps I'm too cynical.
Rgds,
-drc