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 alsohelping 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 thefinal /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- homein 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 andRIPE is proposing a /27 minimum delegation in their final /8. Best Regards Terence Zhang