Re: [sig-policy] prop-081: Eligibility for assignments from the final /8
On 15/02/2010, at 2:01 PM, Terence Zhang YH(CNNIC) wrote:
>
>> The policy as written says /22. I personally would loath /24s or anything smaller being created >by policy for this. There is no need.
>
> Like it or not, the current APNIC assignment policy and the transfer policy allow /24 delegations.
>
In terms of the final /8, I do not believe this aspect of APNIC policies for transfers and assignments should be replicated.
>
>> The policy as it stands does this. Adding extra work for the secretariat in allowing smaller >allocations assignments is simply more ipv4 work.
>
> But that's exactly what we are doing currently, allowing assignments.
But at the final /8, you shouldn't. You should be very conservative in your work, and the work you expect APNIC to do on dwindling resources (both $$ and number resources).
>
>>> 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.
>
> And multihoming & IXP don't need IPv4 addresses from the last /8 too?
>
honestly, no. The last /8 is it. no more. let the people who really know what to do, as enablers, ie the LIRs have the resources to make a broad brush stroke differences while people are scrambling. (btw IXPs should know better too!! That said since IXPs tend to have this grey area of route visibility maybe they should live in 1/8 ;)
>
>>> 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.
>
> I don't mean we should copy every thing from other RIR, just to show that /24 is also
> an applicable size.
I'm still not convinced.