Hi David, David Woodgate said the following on 22/7/08 14:10: >
My main problem is that prop-062 seems to risk locking up the majority of the last /8, and therefore does not share it at all, let alone in a fair and equitable fashion.
I don't see how it is locking up the majority of the final /8. Would you please explain this.
If the tying of the allocation size to APNIC's minimum allocation at the time the allocation is requested is causing some concern, would you perhaps explain what might be a more useful quantity to choose, and why.
I'd be more sympathetic to a proposal which:- Was more aligned with the LACNIC proposal - that is, it reserved a smaller amount of space (the LACNIC proposal only specifies a /12) for *only* new businesses, based on a reasonable demand forecast model.
LACNIC's new policy applies to a /12 when LACNIC can no longer get address space from the IANA. There is no reason why something like this cannot be proposed for the APNIC region.
The authors' goal for prop-062 was to propose something constructive assuming the success of prop-055. If prop-055 fails, I see no need for prop-062. But I would then agree there would be need for a LACNIC style /12 policy.
- Considered reservations on the basis of associations between IPv4 allocations and IPv6 deployment or other technical requirements - an example (but not the only possible idea) is ARIN proposal 2008-5 (authored by Alain Durand)
Again, no reason why this cannot be proposed for the APNIC region.
- Identified that any part of the /8 not covered by these reservations would be available for demand-based allocation under the APNIC's normal allocation policies.
Which reservations does this point refer to?The only reservation made in prop-062 is for a /16 for future unforseen needs - and when the remainder of the final /8 is used, then the /16 would also be available for distribution.