Re: [sig-policy] [Sig-policy] prop-062-v001: Use of final /8
- To: Geoff Huston <gih at apnic dot net>
- Subject: Re: [sig-policy] [Sig-policy] prop-062-v001: Use of final /8
- From: Philip Smith <pfs at cisco dot com>
- Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2008 22:25:37 +1000
- Authentication-results: syd-dkim-1; header.Fromemail@example.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/syddkim1002 verified; );
- Cc: 'APNIC Policy SIG List' <sig-policy at apnic dot net>
- Delivered-to: sig-policy at mailman dot apnic dot net
- In-reply-to: <487F2F65.9060002 at apnic dot net>
- 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>
- Organization: Cisco Systems
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <200807160431.m6G4VA28084482@burn.telstra.net> <49ADDDED-D274-4F3C-A16B-696240DB0E29@iroute.org> <200807170100.m6H10NP8099257@burn.telstra.net> <ED13462B-15CF-4916-91B0-1F0522F9AACF@jonnynet.net> <487F2F65.email@example.com>
- User-agent: Thunderbird 188.8.131.52 (Macintosh/20080421)
Hi Geoff, Geoff Huston said the following on 17/7/08 21:39:
Jonny Martin wrote:Smoothing this uneven distribution requires that this last /8 is held in reserve with vastly different allocation policies to that in place now.Such as assertion prompts the obvious question: Why is this _required_?
I'm more puzzled why prop-55 is required. It has consumed a lot of time and energy of the proponents and RIR meetings, yet I really don't see what difference it will really make.
So this proposal is answering the criticisms that I and many others have made regarding prop-55. prop-55 should never have been made without something to back it up. No one receives monies from a grant application on the basis of "oh, trust us, we'll spend wisely, but we can't tell you what we're going to spend it on yet". But that's prop-55's problem...
prop-62 tries to give one suggestion as to what we should do with this "precious" last /8 that APNIC will receive if prop-55 is approved. I'm sure other folks will come up with other ideas, and I'm sure some folks will be quite happy with the first come first served that we have now.
> wait until the current allocation framework is effectively exhausted beforeIf the current address distribution policy framework is "unfair" then why
> attempting to change it?Where does prop-62 say the current policy is unfair? The existing policy favours current members, it doesn't favour industry newcomers who don't yet know they need IPv4 address space to support their NAT and NAT-PT devices while they get IPv6 deployed.
Changing the allocation policies of this "last" address block is something
> that deserves some thought. It seems that the proposals all advocate some > form of rationing of the resource among the applicants. Yes. This is one way. I'm sure there could be others.
Beneficiaries of any last block rationing scheme obviously may regard
> the outcome as "fair" (although if they get allocated less than they > believe they need I'm not sure that even they would agree that it was > "fair"), while those who are not beneficiaries would obviously feel that > such measures are "unfair".I don't think anyone considers any "equal distribution" scheme as fair when they look at it from their selfish point of view. But at least it has no surprises, you know what you are going to get. You turn up at the petrol pump, and you are getting your allocation, and that is it, whether you are driving a gas guzzler or a micro-car. I remember 1972!
So this does not really look like an exercise in "fairness" does it?
The element in fairness is that everyone gets one piece of the cake. Without this proposal, it is quite conceivable that a very big member could consume everything. Now they would think that is fair, as they have very substantial needs, but I'm not sure that anyone else would think it is very fair, especially when so much effort has been expended in getting a final /8 to supposedly "share out".
> This appears to me to be more like an exercise in implementing particular > industry policies that make certain distinctions between industry actors.It says to each industry actor: you can have an equal piece of this IPv4 pie to help you while you deploy IPv6. I know that "a fair go" is unheard of in a competitive commercial landscape...
> There is also a considerable risk that there may be a > collection of unanticipated outcomes. No argument here, we are in a world of unanticipated outcomes now...
I would not normally advocate the
> wisdom of putting the address community in the hot seat of determination> of mainstream telecommunication policies, particularly so given that a more
> conventional approach is to use public policies and the associated > legislative, regulatory and taxation framework at national levels to > achieve desired industry and social outcomes, if thats the underlying > agenda here.Sorry, I didn't read the piece in the policy proposal that talked about influencing mainstream telecommunications policies. I don't even see how the policy even attempts to do that. And even if one of the "unanticipated outcomes" is that it does influence telecoms policies, would they be influenced positively, or negatively...? And from whose viewpoint...? Who knows, I don't think any of us do.
The goal of the policy is purely to ensure that the "precious" /8 realised by prop-55 is shared out amongst the stakeholders in the APNIC service region in a way that could be considered fair and equitable to all.