Re: [sig-policy] IPv4 countdown policy proposal
At 15:24 07/02/27, David Conrad wrote:
>Arano-san,
>
>On Feb 26, 2007, at 1:43 AM, Takashi Arano wrote:
>>>- Currently, APNIC has an "80% rule". Create a policy that when the
>>>current free pool is reduced by 50%, make it a 90% rule. When the
>>>remaining free pool is reduced by another 50%, make it a 95%
>>>rule. Etc.
>>I don't believe it doesn't lead to significant conservation.
>
>The point of this example was to make it self-adjusting. As the free
>pool gets smaller, the restrictions increase automatically. By
>definition, it would extend the free pool as far as it needs to go --
>the restrictions would get arbitrarily complex so at some point it
>becomes easier/cheaper/more cost effective to simply deploy IPv6 and
>the NAT boxes necessary for IPv6-only sites to talk to the rest of
>the Internet.
Of course, I believe I understand this.
I don't just understand your example does not seem effective very much
for conservation.
Assume that LIR A is consuming IPv4 addresses constantly and
they are given /8 of allocation for one year's usage. Here 80% rule
results in sebsequent request after ten months when they consume
80% of /8. In 95% rule, they consume 95% of /8 in nearly 12 months
and then come back to registries for subsequent addresses.
In both rules, LIR is allocated /8 per a year. 95% rule just delays
the timeing of subsequent request a little bit.
This is why I think your example is not so effective.
I would agree that mix and match may be useful. But even if
we succeed in conserving 20%, exhaustion date would be
prolonged just one year, where LIRs would have severe time
being allocated. If you like gradual policy, probably that policy
should conserve more addresses, say 40% which can prolong
address life time from 5 years to 8 years or so.
In order to do so, I guess policy should be more drastic
and we would have to discuss who and in which cases
addresses are not allocated/assigned.
Doesn't it make sense?
Regards,
Takashi Arano
>>>I'm sure there are many others.
>>Again, I don't think there are many.
>
>There are a myriad variations and combinations that can be applied.
>
>>It would be very difficult to decide which portion of address blocks
>>that are currently allocated/assigned will not be allocated/assigned
>>in a new policy.
>
>I must not understand this comment. I would assume the new policy
>would apply to the free pool existent at the time the policy was
>implemented, just like policies have always been applied.
>
>Rgds,
>-drc