Re: [sig-policy] IPv4 countdown policy proposal
At 04:25 07/02/17, Randy Bush wrote:
>but then there is the bright idea of holding some in reserve so we can
>have some wonderful, very high stake, wars over who gets it and why.
>this scares me more than either of the above two scenarios. but i am
>sure we will get a lot of help divvying it up from the governments, itu,
>lawyers, and politicians. we will totally destroy what is left of
>cooperative internet stewardship in this process.
>
>the slow versus sharp pain decision seems trivial when compared to the
>extreme pain of the wars of divvying up a reserve. let's not go there.
I can share your concern.
However, the issue we are proposing about a reserve is closely
related to setting X-date. That is, leaving a reserve v.s. not setting X-date.
Setting X-date would surely result in leaving some blocks because
registries will accept any IPv4 address request before X-date
and there needs to be some wasted space to be left for this.
If divvying is too tough, we can throw away an idea of divvying in the modified proposal,
where we can just freeze the reserve.
Also, the amount of reserve can be tried to be minimum. For example, besides A-date
and X-date, we can set A2-date which adjusts and re-announces X-date.
Regards,
Takashi Arano