Re: [sig-policy] prop-051: Global policy for the allocation of the remai

To: sig-policy at apnic dot net
Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-051: Global policy for the allocation of the remaining IPv4 address space
From: Raul Echeberria <raul at lacnic dot net>
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 07:53:08 -0300
Delivered-to: sig-policy at mailman dot apnic dot net
In-reply-to: <46A931D3.2050301 at cisco dot com>
List-archive: <http://www.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-policy>
List-help: <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=help>
List-id: APNIC SIG on resource management policy <sig-policy.lists.apnic.net>
List-post: <mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net>
List-subscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy>, <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy>, <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=unsubscribe>
References: <46A8307B.6010205@nic.ad.jp> <46A857F3.7050603@cisco.com> <7.0.1.0.1.20070726080944.038550b0@lacnic.net> <66C0C939-9FDC-4060-9429-3ED9DDDA8195@kurtis.pp.se> <7.0.1.0.1.20070726131444.0385f960@lacnic.net> <46A931D3.2050301@cisco.com>

At 08:44 p.m. 26/07/2007, Philip Smith wrote:

Hi Raul,

Raul Echeberria said the following on 27/7/07 03:04:
>

> It is very clear. In fact I don't think thatany RIR promote the use of NAT.


Do RIRs promote the use of real IP addresses instead of NAT? (Open
question, I don't really know the answer.)


Yes, in our case (LACNIC) the answer is Yes.

I don't want to become involved in the specific

discussion about this proposal, at least by now,

and in fact I didn't say any thing in favor or against it.

My only intention was to point out that this is

not a problem between LACNIC region and for

instance APNIC region. This discussion needs of a global perspective.


Just discuss the merits or the problems of the policy itself.


Raúl