Re: [sig-policy] last call: prop-062: Use of final /8
Dean Pemberton said the following on 23/9/08 13:44:
>
> 1) I think it's misnamed. It doesn't deal with the last /8. It deals
> with a part of it. This could be fixed easily by changing the name. Or
> if the name is correct, then the content needs to change.
As you will recall from the APNIC Policy SIG meeting, the policy that
was approved deals with the last /8 worth of address space that APNIC
has. It no longer deals with the /8 that will be assigned by a
successful proposal-055.
http://www.apnic.net/policy/discussions/prop-062-v002.txt is the updated
text based on the outcome of the Christchurch meeting.
> The proposal doesn't seem to discuss the use of the last /8 so much as
> allocate a /22 to existing and new members once the last /8 is assigned
> to APNIC.
It doesn't allocate a /22. It allocates APNIC's minimum allocation at
time of allocation request. Today this is a /22 - it might be something
else in the future.
> There are 16128 usable /22s in a /8 (after the /16 for unknown use is
> taken out). As I recall from discussions in Christchurch this was much
> larger than the number of APNIC members.
Much larger than today's combined APNIC and NIR membership. Are we to
assume that growth in APNIC and NIR membership is to remain static? This
was discussed in Christchurch and I think it was reasonably clear that
we really don't know what will happen.
> In essence this proposal has the following problems:
>
> a) it proposes to underallocate the last /8 because there are less
> than 16k APNIC members.
Today. What will APNIC's and the NIR's membership be 2 or 3 years from
now? (I don't know, and wouldn't dare to guess.)
> b) it encourages organisations to sign up new APNIC members just to
> get more address space. These memberships will be spurious and cause
> more problems than they are worth for the validity of the registration data.
How do we know they will be spurious? Some organisations up to now are
quite happy to work with address space from their upstream. But if they
realise that they can justify utilisation of a /22 then they can get it
directly from APNIC instead. I see nothing wrong with this.
> c) nothing in the proposal deals with what happens with any
> additional space once all existing members get their /22s (apart from
> waiting for new members to join). People have said "There won't be
> any. People will just sign up new members to get it". True.... See
> point (b)
Do we care? IPv4 will/should be virtually all gone by then. People
should be using IPv6, right?
> I think changes need to be made so that the proposal actually addresses
> what happens with the entirety of the last /8, not just part of it.
I thought it addresses the entirety of the last /8. If there is
something missing, please describe what is missing. I know you have said
that APNIC doesn't have 16000 or so members *today*, but we are not
talking about today, we are talking about when there is no more IPv4
address space available from IANA. What should we be doing to augment
the proposal?
> Having said that. As Geoff is fond of pointing out, this whole proposal
> is like arguing over which deck chair on the Titanic has the best view.
> It's really too late by the time we're down to the last /8.
100% agreement from me.
> 2) I'd like to see the allocation of ANY of the last /8 to any APNIC
> member tied pretty strongly to an IPv6 deployment policy.
This question was asked in Christchurch - the chairs should correct me
if I'm wrong, but when the question was asked of the audience, I don't
recall many hands going up to indicate support for this idea.
> Anyone who isn't making inroads into IPv6 by the time APNIC is down to
> the last /8 has all but missed the boat, let alone the point.
Agreed.
> APNIC has a responsibility to guide these members on the right track.
> Ensuring that they not only have an IPv6 allocation, but a deployment
> and migration plan would go a long way to ensuring that people are on
> the right track.
Can APNIC tell its members what to do? I suspect not... But I agree with
the sentiment...
philip
--