Re: [sig-policy] last call: prop-062: Use of final /8
> 1) I think it's misnamed. It doesn't deal with the last /8. It
> deals with a part of it.
could you describe which part(s) of the /8 it does not cover?
my read of the document is that a /16 is held in reserve and the rest
goes to minimum allocations to existing and new entrants. if this is
not the case, then, indeed, we need to fix the wording.
> 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.
well, kinda.
o it does not allocate them, but reserves them to be allocated
o it is not /22s, but rather the current minimum allocation when the
actual allocations are made
o there is also a /16 held in reserve for unexpected circumstances
> In essence this proposal has the following problems:
> a) it proposes to underallocate the last /8 because there are less
> than 16k APNIC members.
the thought, as i hope it says in the document, was to allow for *new*
entrants in the game. some of us are contemplating children. some of
us even have grandchildren. we're trying to leave a little of what was
so plentiful for us to them.
> 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.
indeed, and the possibility of bogus applications is a problem we have
today. you are correct in that this proposal does not attempt to solve
it. do you have specific suggestions to do so other than not allocating
resources at all?
> 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).
this is not anticipated to be a major issue once ipv4 space runs out.
but, if some more shows up, you're right, this policy does not cover it.
so i presume that would be allocated under then then existing policies.
as this is not the ietf, we're not trying to boil the whole ocean, just
deal with some specific problems, ensuring small bits of ipv4 space to
existing and new entrants for a while (think a world where multi-homed
site nats needing to talk to the v4 internet are common). we're just
trying to make the last bar of chocolate last a while.
> 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.
again, which part of the last /8 does it not cover. please be very
specific.
> 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.
ipv6 deployment will happen on its own merit. the child will not eat
more vegetables if you starve it for meat.
> 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.
and this is a problem we can actually solve? is this like the dick
cheney government invading iraq to bring them democracy even if we need
to kill them all?
randy