Re: [sig-policy] [Sig-policy] prop-073:Automatic allocation/assignmentof
> If we don't do this are we really saying that we don't expect everyone
> who currently has an IPv4 address allocation to have an IPv6 allocation
> at some stage?
that's an open question, isn't it? we are facing a distinct possibility
of a massively natted ipv4 network. i am extremely displeased by this
possibility. but that does not mean that i deny it.
>> indeed, this strategy was considered and discarded by both ripe and
>> arin. american (and probably many others') idiom: you can lead a horse
>> to water but you can not make it drink.
> And RIPE discarded it because it would have seen members getting a
> higher bill had it proceeded.
not as i remember. perhaps sander or gert will comment. my memory
(which is known to be horribly faulty) is that the proposal that failed
took care of that. it seem to have failed because it was seen that
handing out resources that someone had not asked for and was not going
to use was silly.
> Under APNIC's new pricing that's not the case.
then perhaps the simple solition is seeing that apnic's pricing sees
that those who want/need to deploy ipv6 can get the resources easily and
cheaply.
> And if we don't use addressing policy to influence technical or social
> behavior why would we bother expending the effort that we do?
sometimes i wonder. i.e. i think the rirs' policy processes create too
much complexity and noise. this all used to be done by one computer
scientist working part time. yes, it has scaled. but i worry that our
policies and processes have inflated analogously to icann's budget.
the only reason i see for all this is that we are stewards of a set of
resources that are limited and therefore need to be doled out fairly and
prudently. and giving some of those resources to folk who do not ask
for them and do not plan to use them does not seem to meet either of
those criteria.
</personal opinions>
randy