Re: [sig-policy] prop-051: Global policy for the allocation of the remai
Philip
At 05:14 a.m. 26/07/2007, Philip Smith wrote:
For the record, I don't support this policy proposal as it is basically
unfair.
I think that what is unfair is your assumption about LACNIC.
The problem for our region is that it brings the timeline of run out of
address space for APNIC forward by a good 12 months, meaning just over 2
years of IPv4 space left.
Entities will set up business in Latin America or Africa, even just a
frontage, so they can apply for IPv4 address space from LACNIC or AfriNIC.
Think of other real world situations: fuel shortages for example. Do you
queue to fill your car at a filling station which has run out of fuel?
No, you drive to the one that still has fuel, and you'll find ways
around any artificial rules that station implements.
As I said at the AfriNIC meeting a few months ago, it would be better if
LACNIC and AfriNIC made it very clear to their members (e.g. like ARIN
Board did re IPv6)
Obviously you are not aware of LACNIC activities, but we have already done it.
to get their real IPv4 address space now, rather than
continuing on their journey of make believe that NAT somehow solves all
their problems.
Also.
If some of the LIRs in those two regions converted from
NAT and double NAT to using real IPv4 addressing, both LACNIC and
AfriNIC would receive more IPv4 /8 blocks sooner, making the chance of
them running out first less of a likelihood.
It is not LACNIC's objective. We don't want to
promote a competition for getting IPv4 addresses from the unallocated pool.
Right the opposite.
Raúl