Re: [sig-policy] [Sig-policy] prop-062-v001: Use of final /8
I have been following along recently silently. Now I feel again
compelled to respond.
Regardless of what policy for the user/allocation of the remaining
IPv4 addresses, it would be wise to conserve them closely unless
or until there has been, 1.) a reclamation of already unassinged
IPv4 address space, and 2.) that there has been a significant increase
in migration to IPv6, and/or 3.) a increasn are respect by the RIR's,
LIR's, and others for IPv8 if such is what they desire.
David Woodgate wrote:
> At 03:57 pm 27/07/08, Philip Smith wrote:
> >Hi David,
>
> Hi Philip,
>
> >David Woodgate said the following on 22/7/08 14:10:
> > >
> >>My main problem is that prop-062 seems to risk locking up the
> >>majority of the last /8, and therefore does not share it at all,
> >>let alone in a fair and equitable fashion.
> >
> >I don't see how it is locking up the majority of the final /8. Would
> >you please explain this.
> prop-062 allows for 16,000+ LIRs to each get a minimum /22
> allocation. As discussed in a previous email, it seems hard to
> justify even 4,000 LIRs over the next few years; I'd suggest that
> 8,000 LIRs in the Asia-Pacific seems unlikely within 10 years. That
> would seem to leave up to 8,000-12,000 * /22s unclaimed for a long
> time. But - if I'm reading it correctly - prop-062 doesn't seem to
> suggest that anything else would be done with this unclaimed space,
> and therefore it won't be used during that time; that is, the space
> is "locked up" and unused.
>
> >If the tying of the allocation size to APNIC's minimum allocation at
> >the time the allocation is requested is causing some concern, would
> >you perhaps explain what might be a more useful quantity to choose, and why.
>
> Actually, I think your question highlights the paradox of an "even
> distribution principle" as suggested by this proposal:
>
> - If you try to distribute a /8 evenly across current and forecast
> LIRs, then this will make the assumption that all LIRs will need this
> distribution, and this implicitly abandons the principle of
> distribution according to demonstrated demand. And if you abandon
> that principle, then address space is likely to be wasted unnecessary
> allocations.
>
> - But if you maintain a requirement of demonstrated demand, and only
> allow a single allocation from the last /8 to LIRs of size
>
> { (Addresses in /8) / (No. current and forecast LIRs) },
>
> then you will almost certainly *not* allocate all of that /8 space
> because the demand won't be able to be demonstrated by some LIRs,
> which will then leave addresses from the /8 needlessly unassigned
> (because the policy would stop allocation of addresses to LIRs that
> *could* use the addresses, but need more than the uniform allocation to do so).
>
> >>I'd be more sympathetic to a proposal which:
> >>- Was more aligned with the LACNIC proposal - that is, it reserved
> >>a smaller amount of space (the LACNIC proposal only specifies a
> >>/12) for *only* new businesses, based on a reasonable demand forecast model.
> >
> >LACNIC's new policy applies to a /12 when LACNIC can no longer get
> >address space from the IANA. There is no reason why something like
> >this cannot be proposed for the APNIC region.
> >
> >The authors' goal for prop-062 was to propose something constructive
> >assuming the success of prop-055. If prop-055 fails, I see no need
> >for prop-062. But I would then agree there would be need for a
> >LACNIC style /12 policy.
>
> I don't see why if prop-055 succeeds that the accompanying proposal
> needs to specify the usage of the entire last /8 - surely such a
> proposal only needs to identify the usage and reservation of as much
> address space out of the last /8 as is *necessary* for designated
> "special purposes", and could say that the remainder would be
> allocated by normal request processes.
>
> >>- Considered reservations on the basis of associations between IPv4
> >>allocations and IPv6 deployment or other technical requirements -
> >>an example (but not the only possible idea) is ARIN proposal 2008-5
> >>(authored by Alain Durand)
> >
> >Again, no reason why this cannot be proposed for the APNIC region.
> >
> >>- Identified that any part of the /8 not covered by these
> >>reservations would be available for demand-based allocation under
> >>the APNIC's normal allocation policies.
> >
> >Which reservations does this point refer to?
>
> I meant the reservations that might arise in a hypothetically revised
> draft from the first two points I suggested: i.e. a smaller
> LACNIC-style draft, and any technology-based reservations; I doubt
> such reservations would cover an entire /8.
>
> >philip
> >--
>
> Regards,
>
> David
>
> * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
> _______________________________________________
> sig-policy mailing list
> sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net
> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
Regards,
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
Abraham Lincoln
"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is
very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt
"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS.
div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC.
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail
jwkckid1 at ix dot netcom dot com
My Phone: 214-244-4827