Re: [sig-policy] prop-056: IPv4 soft landing
- To: "sig-policy at apnic dot net" <sig-policy at apnic dot net>
- Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-056: IPv4 soft landing
- From: Raul Echeberria <raul at lacnic dot net>
- Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 11:01:27 -0300
- Delivered-to: sig-policy at mailman dot apnic dot net
- In-reply-to: <C3D665CC.3B12%david.conrad at icann dot org>
- List-archive: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-policy>
- List-help: <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=help>
- List-id: APNIC SIG on resource management policy <sig-policy.lists.apnic.net>
- List-post: <mailto:email@example.com>
- List-subscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy>, <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=subscribe>
- List-unsubscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy>, <mailto:email@example.com?subject=unsubscribe>
- References: <47B0F7F2.firstname.lastname@example.org> <C3D665CC.3B12email@example.com>
At 01:51 a.m. 12/02/2008, David Conrad wrote:
Hi, As the author: On 2/11/08 5:35 PM, "Toshiyuki Hosaka" <hosaka at nic dot ad dot jp> wrote: > - Do you support or oppose this proposal? Unless there is a strong argument otherwise, I'm planning on suggesting this proposal be dropped. The issue is that according to Geoff's address consumption projections, the savings generated by Soft Landing will amount to a few months at best. While I might have some argument with a particular assumption Geoff makes, this is somewhat irrelevant.
The "soft landing" approach could be relevant not only for saving addresses but also for sending a clear message to the community. I don't know if this proposal is as good as it can be. Probably it can be improved, but I come back to my point in other mail here, this kind of proposal need a global perspective.
The intent of Soft Landing was to make sure efforts were undertaken to increase address utilization efficiency and migrate (or at least integrate) IPv6. My personal suspicion is that Geoff's proposal will have a much more significant effect in the AP region in this regard (:-)). So, unless someone feels strongly otherwise (and expresses this to me or on this list in the next couple of days), consider 056 withdrawn... Regards, -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 -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition.Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.2/1273 - Release Date: 12/02/2008 09:31 a.m.