Re: [sig-policy] prop-051: Global policy for the allocation of the remai
At 08:32 p.m. 29/07/2007, David Conrad wrote:
Raul,
On Jul 26, 2007, at 10:04 AM, Raul Echeberria wrote:
In fact I don't think that any RIR promote the use of NAT.
Historically, NAT use hasn't needed promotion.
This is a byzantine discussion and I guess that
we agree regarding the use of NAT.
What it is interesting and in fact a paradox, is that probably the
use of NAT will be increased in developing countries when regional
pools become
exhausted because most ISPs will not have the economic power for
compiting for IPv4 addresses in a possible market while others ISPs
continue accessing IPv4 addresses.
Indeed, but it isn't clear to me how this proposal helps that
situation. The ISPs with the most power are also the ones who
probably already have offices/subsidiaries/partners/etc. in Latin
America and Africa.
This is something that should be answered by the proposal's authors.
Unless AfriNIC and LACNIC become _extremely_
stringent on membership and invest heavily in verification
mechanisms,
Why not ? good point. But not only that. Other
measures will be necessaries in the future too
for avoiding or limiting the RIR shopping.
And this is something that should be done by all
the RIRs due to the fact that nobody know which
one will be the first in running out of IPv4
addresses (if one). And it not depends only in
the distribution of the unallocated pool, but
also on the regional policies for dealing with
the last part of the regional stocks in each region.
The discussion should include, but not limited
to, the ideas behind your proposal of "soft landing".
I don't see the larger ISPs even blinking at this sort of
thing. Just the cost of doing business...
Rgds,
-drc
P.S. It might also be argued that the paradox you note could be a
blessing in disguise as it means those in developing countries will
make the shift to IPv6 that much sooner.
This is something similar to say that developing
countries will be the firts ones in shifting to
ethanol based cars because they will not have
oil. But so, we will have to produce our own
cars, and it will be of course more expensive
than buying the cars produced for the big mass.
Shifting to IPv6 is an objective and of course,
it is probably more important for developing
countries since they have less margin for
speculating, and of course we are working very
mucha on that and spending large amount of
resources as we have been doing for the last 4-5
years, but the main objective for all of us
should be, IMHO, a non traumatic transition to IPv6 worldwide.
Raúl