Re: [sig-policy] prop-091: Limiting of final /8 policy to specific /9
I find myself agreeing with Andy's categorisation of organisation's that might make use of the last /8 given the desire for IPv6 global deployment. I still maintain the belief that should an entity require IPv4, APNIC and the policy structure should not unnecessarily restrict an allocation. I see no need to hold IPv4 in a museum.
This said, I would much rather see this addressed when we reach the actual problem that an organisation NEEDS IPv4 which cannot be satisfied by the current policies. So for now I would prefer see this policy put on the shelf and considered when an organisation, or the APNIC secretariat on behalf of that organisation to maintain that org's privacy, reports this problem as an actual "I need IPv4, I tried, and APNIC said 'no' ..." event.
I think at that point we will be far more aware of how this beast will creep out of the cave, and probably possess the education on how to address the issues. Thus the resulting answer could be a release a /9 of the last /8 for open, or singular allocation, or by some other drip-feed mechanism, or perhaps even require some IPv6 deployment for allocation of IPv4.. But all this in my eyes requires a crystal ball of significant worth. I'm not convinced that anyone possesses such a crystal ball.
Cheers
Terry
On 21/01/2011, at 12:24 PM, Andy Linton wrote:
> There are two groups that the last /8 policy has to work for:
>
> 1) Those requesting addresses for the first time. They will be operating
> under a regime where they are starting with a clean slate and they will
> be deploying IPv6 and IPv4 together. Anyone who starts a new business
> where they plan only to use IPv4 really doesn't understand the realities
> of the world.
>
> 2) Those who have IPv4 space already. And this is the group this
> proposal is written for. This group has had many years notice that IPv4
> is running out and they've still got their heads in the sand.
>
> Let's assume we adopt this proposal and we begin to talk about the last
> /9 provisions. I can envisage a similar proposal appearing just before
> the last /9 provisions come into force proposing we split the last /9
> into two /10 blocks and so on until there really is nothing left.
>
> I'd like to see this resource preserved for future use and I don't
> support changing the current last /8 policy.
>
> We can look at this again when the last /8 policy has been operating for
> some time and relax the limit of a single /22 per entity if we feel that
> will help with IPv6 deployment but if we adopt this proposal now this
> now we'll have no reserve capacity to play with.
>
>
> * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
> _______________________________________________
> sig-policy mailing list
> sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net
> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy