Re: [sig-policy] prop-051: Global policy for the allocation of the remai
Hi,
Sorry for the slow response.
On Aug 11, 2007, at 9:16 AM, Hytham EL Nakhal wrote:
David Conrad:
Indeed, but it isn't clear to me how this proposal helps that
situation. The ISPs with the most power are also the ones who
probably already have offices/subsidiaries/partners/etc. in Latin
America and Africa. Unless AfriNIC and LACNIC become _extremely_
stringent on membership and invest heavily in verification
mechanisms, I don't see the larger ISPs even blinking at this sort
of thing. Just the cost of doing business...
Also the same question: What is the percentage of these large ISPs
that have many offices in different RIR regions with regard to the
whole ISPs in all RIR regions ?
Probably fairly small. However, it is probably worth noting that the
majority of address space at the RIRs is consumed by a small minority
of the members.
and to avoid the probable second market for IP addresses it’s
better to insure at least 5 /8 blocks for each RIR.
Why do you think 5 /8s for each RIR will avoid a secondary market?
And each RIR is capable for regulate distribution and assignment of
its pool in order to avoid that situation as much as possible… for
Egypt there is three Large ISPs has offices in other RIR than
AfriNICand they do use their IPs and AS they got from AfriNIC.
I am not fully aware of the situation in Africa (nor in Latin America
and the Caribbean), but I would be surprised to find that there
aren't countries in which it is possible to establish shell companies
that do little more than establish a legal presence in that country.
Further, it doesn't even have to be a shell, it could as easily be a
partnership with an existing company, including an established ISP.
All it takes is a bit of money, which large scale ISPs generally have.
ISPs in developed countries will do whatever is necessary to obtain
the IPv4 to continue their business and not transit to IPv6,
whereas ISPs in developing countries which are less in technical
capabilities and face financial problems are required to transit to
IPv6 faster than ISPs in developed countries .. Is it the fairness
from your point of view ?
No, I wouldn't consider it fair. However, from the perspective of
the large scale ISPs, it is just business. In any event, the point
I've been trying to make is that regardless of what the RIRs do, a
secondary market will almost certainly establish itself and it would
probably be best for the RIRs to figure out how to deal with that
fact rather than pretending business realities don't apply.
Please No NAT encourage, Philip can reply better than me for NAT
advantages and disadvantages.. but Also NAT cost a lot of money as
it requires special hardware cards (expensive one) in some routers
to be able to do NATing
Given IPv6 is not backwards compatible with IPv4, you'll need some
form of network address translation to allow folks who are IPv4-only
to talk to sites that are IPv6-only and vice versa. The future is
_full_ of some form of NAT.
Regards,
-drc