Re: [sig-policy] prop-081: Eligibility for assignments from the final /8
On 04/02/2010, at 7:02 PM, Terence Zhang YH(CNNIC) wrote:
>> as a polite request can you please distinguish your posts as either SIG chair or co-author when and where confusion might occur?
> I will declare it very clear if there might be confusion.
>> I really don't think that a differentiation of assignment or allocation is needed. It will require effort on the secretariat and it is simpler, easier and less burden to just >make the /22 call. Given the secretariat resources are member funded, I think any effort to reduce administrative work load is a good thing - which essentially >means the member gets the allocation faster.
> As I said before, current policy permit assignments as well as allocations,
sure. But is it necessary to take that into the final /8? While I do not have a crystal ball I see very little benefit to anyone in breaking down the last /8 into small chunks for whatever reason. I think it just serves to confuse on several layers.
> I don't see any extra administrative work load will be incurred if we keep
it's not about "extra", it's the last /8 - we should be making less ipv4 work and pushing ipv6.
> these assignments policy in the final /8 phase, let alone to say, some small
> multihoming ,IXP and Critical infrastructure applicants may not be able to
> justify a /22 requirement, so the current minimum assignment size is /24 or lower.
O.k lets be serious here.. are you suggesting that any of:
* root domain name system (DNS) server;
* global top level domain (gTLD) nameservers;
* country code TLD (ccTLDs) nameservers;
* Regional Internet Registry (RIRs); and
* National Internet Registry (NIRs).
will actually require address space under the last /8 policy? are they that shortsighted to fall into this category? really? I don't buy it.
Secondly IXPs. Same question. I can't see that they will have major issues here given MLPA appears (*) to be falling out of favour and IX participants are doing direct sessions with interesting participants that are present.
(*) I am not an expert on IXPs
lastly, small multi-homers (who already have LIR space). Shouldn't we suggest that they head to v6 over trying to multi-home in v4? and if we do foster /24s in the last /8 all I see is a marshland of prefix lengths, given conservation is then moot (nothing left to conserve) wouldn't aggregation be the next best ideal to follow?
lets face it, we are already scraping the barrel with 1/8.
Sorry, I still don't support this proposal and I cant see that changing.