Activity Summary
- 5495 days inactive
- 5495 days old
- sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
- 2 participants
- 1 comments
j
: Next unread message k
: Previous unread message j a
: Jump to all threads
j l
: Jump to MailingList overview
Randy and all: My objection to prop-062 is the reservation of /16 for unknown future requirements.
1. This effectively amounts to APNIC holding a /16.
2. Any unknown future technology better be using IPv6. By holding something, we also effectively not weening off IPv4.
3. Any new technology most likely would affect other RIR and Internet community as a whole. So if we want to address that issue, we should take it up with ICANN/IANA. Maybe someone should propose to reserve another /8 for future unknown technology from the global table.
yi
----- Original Message ---- From: Randy Bush randy@psg.com To: Policy SIG sig-policy@apnic.net Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2008 11:30:48 PM Subject: [sig-policy] last call: prop-062: Use of final /8
----------------------------------------------------------------------- prop-062: Use of final /8 -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear colleagues
This is the final call for comments on policy proposal prop-062, "Use of final /8".
This proposal was presented at APNIC 26 and was accepted by consensus.
The proposal has been submitted to the Policy SIG mailing list for an eight-week discussion period. At the end of that period, if consensus appears to have been achieved, the Policy SIG Chair will ask the Executive Council to endorse the proposal for implementation.
* Send all comments and questions to: sig-policy@apnic.net * Deadline for comments: 24 October 2008
Proposal details ----------------
- New and existing LIRs in the APNIC region to be able to receive a single allocation from the last /8 if they meet the current allocation criteria:
- The size of allocations to be tied to APNIC's minimum allocation size
- A /16 to be reserved from the final /8 for distribution for future, as yet unknown, technology requirements.
Proposal details including the full text of the proposal, presentations, links to relevant meeting archives and links to mailing list discussions are available at:
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-062-v002.html * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
first, thank you for comments.
This effectively amounts to APNIC holding a /16.
Any unknown future technology better be using IPv6.
while this would be a happy event, it is unfortunately not a forgone conclusion.
By holding something, we also effectively not weening off IPv4.
i am confused. in 1 the problem is that it being withheld from use. in 2 the problem is that its use prevents weaning. is the problem that it used or not? if the problem is that it is used, then this argument devolves to one where we should also not use the other 99.41% of the last /8.
isn't this the "make things difficult so people will change" argument? as an operator, i think my job is to make things easy, not hard. the incentive to move to ipv6 is not changed by a trivial bit of insurance.
- Any new technology most likely would affect other RIR and Internet
community as a whole. So if we want to address that issue, we should take it up with ICANN/IANA. Maybe someone should propose to reserve another /8 for future unknown technology from the global table.
as we have seen with -055, we would first need the other rirs to agree to similar policy. a number of them have asked if we will propose -062 in their policy groups. this would be the path to what you suggest. i have been hesitant, but if you would care to join a group to propose the equivalent of -062 in afnog, arin, lacnic, and ripe, i guess i would help with it.
but your changing from a /16 to a /8 may be perceived as a bit hard to defend. a /16 is small enough to not seem silly to hold. a /8 is large enough to cause a *lot* of discussion in arin and ripe in particular.
this is sort of why we thought it easier to just save 0.39% of our last /8 for the public good, negligible cost, no fuss, just insurance.
randy