Re: [sig-policy] prop-056-v001: IPv4 soft landing

To: Toshiyuki Hosaka <hosaka at nic dot ad dot jp>, "sig-policy at apnic dot net" <sig-policy at apnic dot net>
Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-056-v001: IPv4 soft landing
From: Leo Vegoda <leo.vegoda at icann dot org>
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 15:46:13 -0800
Accept-language: en-US
Acceptlanguage: en-US
Delivered-to: sig-policy at mailman dot apnic dot net
In-reply-to: <47983750.4020806 at nic dot ad dot jp>
List-archive: <http://mailman.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>
Thread-index: AcheVq6gVe48Wcy+RYO6pIoZyLo0JgBVck/8
Thread-topic: [sig-policy] prop-056-v001: IPv4 soft landing


[...]

There is a possible unintended consequence of your proposal.

> Disadvantages:
>
>     This proposal:
>
>     - May make it difficult for some ISPs to obtain IPv4 addresses
>       earlier than would be the case if there was no change in IPv4
>       allocation policy.

- May encourage the deployment of additional layers of NAT rather than IPv6.

If you wanted to encourage the deployment of IPv6 you should change the
language from "all non-RFC 1918 address space used for internal
infrastructure" to "all non-IPv6 address space used for internal
infrastructure".

I am not sure whether I am being unnecessarily pessimistic. What do people
think?

Regards,

Leo