Hi Jeff,You've been a little inconsistent in your previous recommendations, so I be grateful if you'd clarify...
If prop-062 is rejected, then when the IPv4 free pool is exhausted, how would you suggest that new, would-be network operators arrange to connect to the current (i.e., IPv4-mandatory) Internet? In the past you have variously recommended:
1) IPv8: http://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-policy/archive/2008/07/msg00017.html 2) IPv9: http://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/apnic-talk/archive/2004/07/msg00002.html http://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/apnic-talk/archive/2004/07/msg00003.html 3) A magical new wireless addressing/routing scheme: http://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/apnic-talk/archive/2004/03/msg00003.htmlWould you suggest that new entrants seek comfort in one of those alternative solutions?
All teasing aside, if you truly think that the current RIR management is a threat to incumbent operators, how do you think that all future, would-be network operators are going to feel if something like prop-062 is not approved? Who do you think they're going to identify as the cause of the manifestly "dangerous situation" if non- substitutable IPv4 address resources are only available from institutions that regard them as either actual competitors or competitors-in-waiting? Or do you think it would be okay last RIR PA/ initial or PI recipient is also the last "provider independent" network?
If you have a plausible alternative I'd love to hear about it. TV On Jul 17, 2008, at 1:52 AM, Jeffrey A. Williams wrote:
David and all, Very good review and determination to your decision. I fully agree. I would further add that given the centric view towards migrating to IPv6 under questionable allocation policies, the IANA and RIR'sseem to be more interested in political positioning rather than managingIP address space in a manner that best serves the community in whichsuch is supposed to serve. As such, and still, the leadership associated and responsible for this overreaching attitude represents a potentiallyif not eminent dangerous situation to ecommerce and non-commercial access accordingly. David Woodgate wrote:The stated purpose of APNIC, according to the by-laws, is "to provide the service of allocating and registering Internet resources for the purpose of enabling communications. (etc.)..." prop-062 as written seems likely to leave the majority of a /8 - millions of addresses - unused on the basis that there *might be* new businesses arising to claim them. Against that, the current forecasts make it clear that those addresses would almost certainly be deployed in the active Internet under existing policies. APNIC is expected to distribute the addresses allocated to it by IANA for **use in the Internet**. I claim that withholding addresses without a clear timeframe of usage does not meet that expectation - but this is what prop-062 would be likely to do, and in doing so would work *against* APNIC's objectives. The question was also asked "So we've given up on IPv6 altogether?". Certainly not, and I trust that everyone in the industry is working hard to enable IPv6 as quickly as possible. However, prop-062 would most likely be applicable in 2011 (if G. Huston's forecasts are right), and I imagine that even with our best combined efforts that there may not be universal access to IPv6 by then. If that's the case, why should we deny Internet connectivity to millions of people for all of the time from 2011 until IPv6 is completely deployed, when we could connect them in 2011? It's unfortunate that IPv4 addresses will run out, but unused IPv4 addresses will not help either. There indeed may be good reasons why *some* IPv4 addresses should be reserved for potential future applications - for example, a hypothetical technical application where some seed IPv4 addresses enabled IPv6 deployment. Such an application would truly enable communications, and so be consistent with APNIC's objectives. But prop-062 is not one of those applications, and I doubt whether any application would require an entire /8 for that purpose. I therefore *do not* support prop-062 as written, on the grounds outlined above and in previous emails. Regards, David Woodgate* 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-policyRegards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix dot netcom dot com My Phone: 214-244-4827* 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