j: Next unread message
k: Previous unread message
j a: Jump to all threads
j l: Jump to MailingList overview
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
This is very intersting because I was having the same exact discussion with izumi-san. A discussion about the situations that "critical infrastructures" will face after the final /8 seems important.
o in the final days, a v4 ixp will need a /24 or /25 or so
/24 /25 seemed pretty generous at first glance considering that there should be less IPv4 traffic and thus less peering activity on IPv4 if LIRs can't get new IPv4 space. But if CGNatting becomes popular that may not be the case. This is hard math.
Randy Bush wrote:
<chair hat = off>
but my memory is that, like the size of the prefix to be handed out, the policy for qualification is actually a reference to then current qualification policy.
sam whacked me to point out that the christchurch discussion did not go with the loose interpretation of 'allocation' to mean allocation or assignment. so i recant, it is probably easier to change that blurring in 62 than in base policy. i am not sure i care deeply about allocation vs assignment, i have always thought the distinction of little use. folk need space, for use or redisribution or both. big deal.
in this case, if 62 is taken formally, one can receive an allocation, which an isp can then chop up and give to its customers, but an end site can not receive an assignment for its own use.
i suspect the math on the likely number of end sites is rather different than the math on the number of isps. this is likely why 62 is worded as it is. this would then lead us into a discussion of stuff such as o in the final days, a v4 ixp will need a /24 or /25 or so o a multi-homed end site should not get more than a /29 (remember, they may want more than a /29, but we're out of v4 space, so tough patooties) o critical infrastructure  does not need more than a /29
i am not against having such a discussion. but i think it needs to be had before just blythely allowing assignments from the last /8.
 and i never beleievd that dns servers other than root servers were in critical need of fixed addres space
sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
sig-policy mailing list firstname.lastname@example.org http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy