Re: [sig-policy] prop-081: Eligibility for assignments from the final /8
Hi Terence,
On Feb 7, 2010, at 11:15 PM, Terence Zhang YH(CNNIC) wrote:
Hi Terry,
Please see our comments below:
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.
I don't see the final /8 as intended specifically to help with v4 to
v6 transition. Rather it is a way to give *every* LIR one last chance
to get v4 space - assuming they meet the allocation criteria at that
point in time. What the LIR does with this last allocation is
completely up to them - the smart ones will have well progressed v6
plans. No-one can complain at that point though, as they were all
treated the same.
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?
The point that Terry was making was that if a critical infrastructure
(*) provider gets to the point of IPv4 exhaustion and only at that
point realises that they have an IPv4 problem, then they shouldn't
really be in charge of that infrastructure. This stuff is not hard to
forecast...
As we get closer to IPv4 address exhaustion it is likely the minimum
allocation size will reduce making it easier for small multihoming-
only to obtain an allocation under APNIC policy at that time.
* Critical infrastructure according to current APNIC policy.
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.
We're having the exact same discussions we had leading up to the
passing of prop-062-v002. In the ideal world we wouldn't be running
out of IPv4 address space. But we are. We can't work magic with the
last /8. Prop62 as it stands is a simple way to make the best of bad
situation.
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
Cheers,
Jonny.