Re: [sig-policy] prop-091: Limiting of final /8 policy to specific /9
On 25/01/2011, at 12:28 PM, David Woodgate wrote:
...
>
> So this is another issue I have with the current final /8 policy; I
> think it's a reasonable idea to have enough addresses for specific
> purposes for a couple of years while the transition to v6 gets under
> way properly, but if either it promotes a lengthy availability of
> IPv4 for new content servers (thus potentially removing IPv6 adoption
> drivers and increasing IPv4 address value)
I don't think the "supply" side (Content) is or is going to be the issue. The issue is the eyeball/access side. Reducing the space to a /8 to allow the eyeball side to continue to avoid the IPv6 issue does more harm. The issue the content providers have with turning IPv6 on is the concern about the 0.05% of people with broken IPv6 connectivity due to broken CPE. If the eyeball side gets on with providing working IPv6 connectivity then the content side seems willing to turn it on quickly.
The IPv6 day coming up shows that a majority of content is capable of turning IPv6 on - by the time you have Google, Yahoo, Akamai doing IPv6 then a big percentage of an eyeball's content will be IPv6 capable. Yet, in my country, only one of the top 10 providers appears to be interested in dual stack to the eyeballs. Indeed, the largest 4 have negligible or no IPv6 deployment.
> , or it causes an explosion
> of requests artificially tailored to bypass the intent of the policy
> (thus potentially causing an inappropriate distribution of addresses
> anyway, with unnecessary hostmaster workload and impacts upon routing
> tables, etc.), then I feel it may do more harm than good for the industry.
Maybe prop-91 should give way to a proposal to tackle that issue? Reducing /8 to /9 doesn't seem to be a plan or a solution to that problem. It appears to be a way of extending IPv4 at the expensive of transition later.
>
> So the question in this context is what the correct balance in size
> of space to reserve? The current policy suggests a /8; prop-091
> suggests another view.
The issues for me are:
Changing the amount of space, without regard to how it's fairly allocated is an issue for me with prop-91.
Changing the amount of space based on past behaviour without considering how behaviour of APNIC members and new members will change over the next few years is an issue with prop-91.
Mean that prop-91 isn't supportable in it's current form.
MMC
>
> Regards, David
>