Re: [sig-policy] Prop 050(072) comments
Vinh D Ngo said the following on 20/3/09 09:02:
>
> 1. Since APNIC promoting the use of IPV6 in the community.
> 2. Why not just let the existing allocating of IPV4 pool take it natural
> course, and if any IPV4 not use must be return to APNIC make it
> available for allocation as per normal.
But how do we, as a community, do that?
> If company decided to keep it
> then good luck to them. The cost associate with IP allocation is due to
> the management maintenance of the IP, NOT because each IP address is a
> commodity for trading.
Well, maintaining the entry in the APNIC database, right. So when the
address block is transferred to someone else, they find an unscrupulous
ISP who is happy to route it for them, what happens? They get
connectivity, all works, because most ISPs don't check beyond their own
customers. Money talks, and I'm sure you'll find that most ISPs will
route first and ask questions later. ;-)
> 3. In the event of a company apply for IP address. APNIC can allocate it
> either from any IPV4 address available from the return IPV4 pool
> address or provide them with the IPV6 pool.
How would someone who only has IPv6 get access to the IPv4 Internet?
While we are in transition phase for the next "many" years, people will
need both protocols until translation techniques between IPv6 and IPv4
become more mature.
> 4. I know that some of you might argue that but what if the company is
> asking for IPV4. Then they should be looking at IPV6 deployment.
My answer above. IPv6 has been around since the mid 90's and, as Geoff
has frequently pointed out in his "state of the internet" presentations,
hasn't really seen that much deployment. If APNIC turns around and tells
people to deploy IPv6 and won't hand out IPv4 addresses, do you think
that would work? Perhaps make a policy proposal along these lines to see
what the community thinks? :-)
> This prevent the idea of trading/swapping etc...
I don't share your confidence here. See my earlier reply to Terence.
philip
--