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
prop-091: Limiting of final /8 policy to specific /9 _______________________________________________________________________
Dear SIG members
Below is a summary of discussions on the proposal to date. We encourage you to continue discussions on the mailing list before the Policy SIG.
Gaurab, Ching-Heng, and Terence
Proposal summary - ----------------
This is a proposal to modify the policies for distribution of the "final /8" to only apply to a specific /9 block of the final /8, on the basis that the current policies would unnecessarily prevent the use of over 8 million IPv4 addresses that otherwise should be used to enable user connections.
Discussion statistics - ---------------------
Version 1 posted to Policy SIG mailing list: 20 January 2011
Number of posts since proposal first posted: 47
Number of people participating in discussions: 16
Summary of discussion to date - -----------------------------
- There was a suggestion that this is a form of hoarding, which was refuted as the resources were to be held in 'public trust'
- One commentator suggested there were two opposing camps discussing this issue. The first believes that if there are address available they should be distributed, the other which says these should be reserved for "new APNIC members" and that the restriction will kickstart IPv6 adoption.
- One person warned that this approach might just result in the community coming back in six months and reducing the reserved space even further. It was suggested that a regular review of the resources may be appropriate anyway.
- An alternative approach to avoid under-utilization of the unallocated space was suggested. The final allocation could be increased to a /21 instead of /22.
- There was a general discussion about issues about proper distribution of the /9, and warnings that a large amount of unallocated resources could encourage bad behavior.
- There was also the suggestion that extending IPv4 distribution any longer gives people false hope of staying with IPv4 rather than moving to IPv6.