Re: [sig-policy] prop-081: Eligibility for assignments from the final /8
On 08/02/2010, at 5:15 PM, Terence Zhang YH(CNNIC) wrote:
>
> Please see our comments below:
>
>> sure. But is it necessary to take that into the final /8? While I do not have a crystal ball
>> I see very little benefit to anyone in breaking down the last /8 into small chunks for whatever reason.
>> I think it just serves to confuse on several layers.
>
> I really can't take the credit for breaking down the last /8 into small chunks,
> it's the idea of the final /8 policy so that my grand children might as well
> be benefit from a little v4 address.
>
> As for the /24 assignment, it's the current policy specified minumum assignment size.
> We are doing that assignment right now, are you suggesting we have much
> serious aggregation needs in the final /8 block?
The policy as written says /22. I personally would loath /24s or anything smaller being created by policy for this. There is no need.
>
>> it's not about "extra", it's the last /8 - we should be making less ipv4 work and pushing ipv6.
>
> I suppose the whole final /8 is intend to help with IPv4 to IPv6 transition, that's why prop-078
> is proposing adding IPv6 deployment criteria for final /8 delegations. So the objective is also
> helping IPv6, the way to IPv6 is transition not revolution.
>
The policy as it stands does this. Adding extra work for the secretariat in allowing smaller allocations assignments is simply more ipv4 work.
> As well as the LIRs, those Small multihoming or IXP organizations may also need the
> IPv4 addresses delegation from the final /8 for transition or other purposes the
> final /8 policy permits.
>
>
>> will actually require address space under the last /8 policy? are they that shortsighted to fall into this category? really? I don't buy it.
>
> So, which one do you assume not require IPv4 address in the last /8?
Glibly, all of them, and any of that list who does, should probably no longer be considered Critical infrastructure.
>
>> lastly, small multi-homers (who already have LIR space). Shouldn't we suggest that they head to v6 over trying to multi-home in v4?
>> and if we do foster /24s in the last /8 all I see is a marshland of prefix lengths, given conservation is then moot (nothing left to conserve)
>> wouldn't aggregation be the next best ideal to follow?
>
> We will be in the final /8 stage 2 or 3 years from now, even if we have great
> development in IPv6 during these few years, legacy IPv4 network will remain
> co-existence with IPv6 for many years. There for the needs for multi-home
> in v4 will remain applicable just as now.
This sounds like making a business case for the existence of more ipv4 policy.
I'm sorry, I am still resolute. The final /8 policy as it stands does not need smaller assignments. There is no problem to solve.
>
> As for the prefix length, again it's not this proposal to introduce /24 delegation,
> the current APNIC assignment policy and the transfer policy allow /24 delegations,
> let alone to say, ARIN will be doing /28 minimum delegation in their final /8 and
> RIPE is proposing a /27 minimum delegation in their final /8.
Good for them (And I look forward to all the nanog posts about routing /28s and /27s). But do we need to? I think not.
Terry