Re: [sig-policy] prop-046: IPv4 countdown policy proposal - returning to
>> 3. RIRs should provide an official projection on the IANA Exhaustion
>> Date to the community.
> I'm not sure I see the point of having 5 different 'official' projections.
job security for internet measurement researchers. don't knock it. :)
>> 4. RIRs should maintain the current address distribution criteria until
>> the IANA Exhaustion Date.
> Perhaps not too surprisingly, I disagree with this particular clause.
> By analogy, we're driving down a road at 100 KPH and we see a brick wall
> ahead of us. This clause requires us to put the car on cruise control
> and close our eyes until we're about a meter from the wall.
while i personally agree with this, i suspect this is an orthogonal
issue, though one worth addressing. currently, the surface appearance
is that there may be at least one rir with the opposite approach,
deplete ipv4 as quickly as possible, probably with the belief that this
will promote ipv6.
perhaps this section is unnecessary to the core of the proposal, and
rirs should continue to have policies they see as appropriate. then all
we conservatives need to do as adjust the rirs' view of 'appropriate.' :)
>> - Is this proposal addressing a real need or problem?
> It isn't clear to me what problem this policy is attempting to address.
i too had not understood the rationale until the new delhi meeting. but
i now think i understand the intent.
http://www.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-policy/archive/2007/09/msg00037.html
>> - What advantages are there to distributing the last remaining
>> /8 blocks equally to the RIRs?
> Encouraging investment in developing countries by large ISPs in
> developed countries?
sounds great to me! but i think i already stuck my foot in my mouth on
this one.
http://www.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-policy/archive/2007/09/msg00038.html
randy