On Feb 4, 2010, at 12:18 PM, Andy Linton wrote:
At the moment there are a number of policy initiatives trying to dealwith micro management of the final /8. My feeling is that we should tryto have a very simple set of policies that reinforce the need to start adopting IPv6 as soon as possible.
I believe that the current /8 policy with a single /22 for each applicant coupled with additional space from the IPv6 transition /10 that we currently have is a pretty reasonable situation and that additional tweaking of the policies will simply serve to confuse applicants.
I think the last /8 policy we have at the moment is about as simple as it can get, which is just what we need. For those that relish complexity there'll be no shortage of it at the point we're using the last /8!
It's natural for us to want to do something here butdifferentiating between allocations and assignments will at best make adifference of a few days or weeks to the final exhaustion date.
I'm not entirely sure what else we can do - or what problem we're actually trying to solve with prop-81. Either way, it's really of no consequence.
The message they need to start hearing now is that when we get to thefinal /8, IPv4 addresses are effectively exhausted and they need to geton with IPv6. That's why I'm not in favour of this proposal.
And I don't favour it either, for much the same reasons you've expressed.