Re: [sig-policy] prop-081: Eligibility for assignments from the final /8
Disclaimer: the comments below reflect the views of the proposal authors and
have NO link to co-chair's opinion about this proposal
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Terry,
Please see our comments below:
>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 really can't take the credit for breaking down the last /8 into small chunks,
it's the idea of the final /8 policy so that my grand children might as well
be benefit from a little v4 address.
As for the /24 assignment, it's the current policy specified minumum assignment size.
We are doing that assignment right now, are you suggesting we have much
serious aggregation needs in the final /8 block?
>it's not about "extra", it's the last /8 - we should be making less ipv4 work and pushing ipv6.
I suppose the whole final /8 is intend to help with IPv4 to IPv6 transition, that's why prop-078
is proposing adding IPv6 deployment criteria for final /8 delegations. So the objective is also
helping IPv6, the way to IPv6 is transition not revolution.
As well as the LIRs, those Small multihoming or IXP organizations may also need the
IPv4 addresses delegation from the final /8 for transition or other purposes the
final /8 policy permits.
>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.
So, which one do you assume not require IPv4 address in the last /8?
>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?
We will be in the final /8 stage 2 or 3 years from now, even if we have great
development in IPv6 during these few years, legacy IPv4 network will remain
co-existence with IPv6 for many years. There for the needs for multi-home
in v4 will remain applicable just as now.
As for the prefix length, again it's not this proposal to introduce /24 delegation,
the current APNIC assignment policy and the transfer policy allow /24 delegations,
let alone to say, ARIN will be doing /28 minimum delegation in their final /8 and
RIPE is proposing a /27 minimum delegation in their final /8.
Best Regards
Terence Zhang